But not dynamic equilibrium, because there's many ways to achieve it and you claim science can make you decide one.
It can.
What is the alternative? Invisible hands guided by God, or maybe Santa?
You say good is subjective but bad is objective.
I don't like starvation, but I don't think it is objectively bad. Bad (as good) is always subjective .
Good or bad are loaded terms. Let's say: "diminishes or maximises well being". That is objective. Starvation diminishes well being, that's a fact.
Come on jtimon, let's be practical.
Finally understood. Sustainability is a priority over people getting free access to their necessities.
When a conflict appears, sutainability gets first and the free access may be stopped when necessary.
Free access is according to the availability. They go hand in hand.
Geez.
Look, it's real simple. The planet has a carrying capacity of X, you have to manage it accordingly. You can't pretend you have 10 planets.
Sadly, free market capitalists believe we have 10 planets to spare.
Sorry to break the news for you: we don't.
As far as I can tell, nobody defends social darwinism nor eugenics here.
I don't think free trade results in "poor getting poorer and rich getting richer", but if it did, then can't imply "almost complete social immobility" at the same time.
It's not my opinion,
the data shows that. The more capitalist a country is, the more inequality and social darwinism. Th more inequality, the more problems.
Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.
You still think os the producer as an individual or a central authority. In an RBE there is no such a thing, ergo what you state is a non sequitur.
4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation
No. This
your an opinion. It must be proved to become science.
If you can't see how the market continuously creates oligopolies, cartels and monopolies without any regard for the environment or the people at large, you have missed the last 50 years of our history.
Shall I go and list all human activities, and how 90% of the market is controlled by no more than 5 companies, that continuously destroy the environment?
Please wake up and open your eyes.
We are not talking about abstract philosophy or theoretical models. We are talking about real life.
The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.
OK, so finally I get it.
You have no plan to avoid self-destruction, you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that.
Any explanation on how that may happen?