19 May 2015
The free market lottery is rigged
The free market system depends on competition to balance cost and quality and to ultimately create efficient production. That's the ideal behind it. But in order for any competition to produce reliable "winners" the judges need to be well educated in the subject matter. In the case of a free market socio-economic system the "judges" (aka the citizens) are themselves in competition to earn "votes" (aka money). For this reason people simply don't have time to educate themselves sufficiently when they're trying to earn "votes" needed to increase their own influence.
This isn't even the reality of the situation, this is where we'd be if the theoretic ideal free market existed. The reality is that these votes aren't just for societal influence, we need to buy our basic necessities with them too. If it isn't bad enough that nature imposes survival-of-the-fittest on us, we as human beings, a social species, compound that natural pressure with systemic survival-of-the-fittest. If you aren't fit enough (or privileged enough) to earn enough social influence votes (again, we're talking about money here) then according to our own system, you can literally fuck off and die. That right there is a very clear reminder for me that we are not an advanced animal, we're just a new type of animal, as uniquely despicable as we are magnificent.
So we have a vast majority of human beings who are barely managing to stay alive nevermind managing to earn enough to have even a meagre say in the course that society takes. We then expect these people to make educated decisions when putting their votes to use. Naturally people don't give a shit, they just want to survive and occasionally be able to buy some luxury items to ease their suffering. When we do put our money to use we really have no choice but to rely on governments and corporations to make decisions for us, but surprisingly not only do we accept that our "benevolent" superiors are making our decisions, we wholeheartedly trust them. Phrases like "they wouldn't sell it if it was bad for us" or "if it was wrong it'd be illegal" are commonly heard.
We justify this system of passing on of the onus of knowledge because at the same time we pass on the burden of responsibility. For example, if a corporation sells us something toxic then they will be responsible for the damages. And if corporations and politicians have to carry the burden of responsibility then so should they receive the rewards of the risks they take. We've essentially cut ourselves out of the equation because governments and corporations are now the real players in our "human" society and we're just the cattle, allowed to earn just enough to keep the system going. The people who have the power to put a stop to this cannibalistic society can't see how dire the situation is because the system obviously works in their favour.
Power and influence flow uphill because that's what competition does. The free market system gives us the right to choose from a vast array of consumables but we dare not complain that every option within our grasp is mildly dangerous for us and our environment in some way or another. If we can't afford healthy foods and quality education, we are to believe that it's our own fault for not being in a situation of privilege. The opulent lives of borderline retarded celebrities are shoved in our faces regularly to make us think "well if those idiots can get rich then it must be realistically achievable". We never get to see that even wealthy celebrities are relatively poor when compared to the top 2%, nor do we see how much of a role luck plays in getting rich. Being talented and intelligent certainly increases your chances but those chances are minuscule to start with and ultimately it's a lottery.