There are those who say: The free market is not to be left unbound or without regulation and interference. It needs to be "regulated" or "adjusted" to some or this political agenda.
Fair enough. Free individuals and their companies need, apparently, a third party (or fourth or fifth, etc.) to push them in this or that direction for the benefit of something else than freedom, such as consumers, competition, environment, ethic standards, etc. Or so I hear.
But has anyone tried to compare the free market to nature? Nature is a finely tuned mechanism of preys and predators. There are those who are eaten, and those who eat. If those who are eaten are too many, then they eat too much vegetation, starve and die in huge numbers. If those who eat the grass-biters become too many, they will also starve. They will eat too much, kill off their prey, and starve.
In short, a finely tuned mechanism which always seeks a balance, but will never reach it for long. That's nature.
So how about the free market? Those who preach endless interference of the free market are almost without exception those who preach endless laizzes faire when it comes to nature. One system of natural law is to be left alone, but another to be heavily regulated by a huge, all-knowing central government.
Do I smell a lack of coherent thinking?
