Thread by @OliverBOfficial

Just heard another three-way interview on the global #freemarket and it was mind-bogglingly asinine, not only because no “economic representative was invited but also because it was thus so easy to forecast what was going to be said.

I do agree that we need labels to indicate which products were manufactured through child labour, to boost consumers' independence of choice, especially the capability of informed choices. When products are unknown whether they have been produced through child labour or note, how

can I make a choice I can approve of? Of course many apologetics would either say: “Let consumers decide through their purchases whether they want to have more or fewer (or maybe no) labels” or “Tell producers to examine their supply chains and attach labels on their products”.

Guess what: Either way is stupid. But to promote and enforce labels are the best way to go ahead and free the consumers of the chains of externally afflicted ignorance. But it is also true that supply chains become gradually thicker, almost impossible to penetrate. To tell pro-

ducers to either break through or abandon those supply chains reeks of ignorance on how businesses, especially globally interconnected businesses, are run these days. And those academics who were invited most likely never worked actively in such a company. They rather learned

about the free market from libraries, in chemically cleaned studies from left-leaning journals and scientists, certain about their moral righteousness because they “listened to science”. This ignorance is almost of weapons-grade quality. At least connect with actual CEOs and bos-

ses, to frame a common-sense plan in terms of laws and programmes. This top-to-bottom authoritarinism, which peaked in the claim that “we should not wait for unanimous approval”, shows just how aloof, how ignorant those self-proclaimed world saviours, finally are. They should

rather stick to their ivory-tower studies on the probable consequences of certain scenarios, on how we should act, but for the people's sake, stay away from the leaders of the free world: Politicians and the economy. One can only tell how worse we would be off when the modern-day

Left took over the leadership. God had to have mercy on us, for he would be the only one to be capable of having mercy for us. No earthling could any longer, because we thus let it happen that those ignorant wanna-be do-gooders clumsily toppled all of our wealth, for the sake of

global equality, thus rushing us all down the dole.

Why? Because they behaved like authoritarians, dictating the market what to do and what not to do; not asking for consent, but acting through coercion; they would not expect that the market, in the words of Ayn Rand, “went on

a strike”. Some claim that Rand was a dimwit, propagating populist pseudo-truths based on blunt visions and perceptions. But if you listen to those debates, read about those proposals on behalf of the Left, and how many of the governments who seek their approval behave, you can

tell that she was right. We should have understood her as a warning of things to come if we didn't watch out. Instead, many of those who now follow the plot of James Taggart waived her off and denounced her as arrogant, even a misanthropic propagandist.

How the tables have

turned.

COMMENT END