Free Market Fallacy

Dismantling government dismantles society

   Conservative devotees of capitalism give lip service to free competition, but what they really want is a system that favors them and limits market access by others.
   Dismantling government while touting more choice for consumers is a sales pitch to cover the reality of more opportunities by private enterprise firms, which then charge whatever exorbitant fees they can. And if the needy few cannot afford the high prices, the rationale is, "They should have saved for such rainy days."
   But these few are needy largely because their wages are not high enough to enable savings, and without government help in providing public education, for instance, they would remain uneducated.
   The same is true for health care. Without adequate income, the poor suffer more from untreated illness than well educated, higher income families.

   So should employers pay higher wages? No, they cry, because that too is government interference in private enterprise. Society cannot survive without a stable government to limit abuses. Health care insurance, for example, is too important to be left entirely to a free market.

   Open competition, where the best care at the best price goes to those with the best negotiating skills, may work well when bidding for janitorial service at a hotel, but illness in a person does not compare with a cluttered bedroom.
   Similarly, in education, giving vouchers to families and telling them to shop around for the best bargain in schooling in the name of "freedom of choice" only benefits families with good negotiating skills.

    At advanced levels, there is room in education for a competitive system, as colleges, engineering schools and other specialized facilities compete to attract the best students.
   But for basic skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, universal education open to all is a better goal, as it has been since the days of the early settlers in America.

   Negotiating the 3Rs is not a viable option.