There's very little to refute... I would only suggest that the first two paradigms exist -- necessarily and implicitly in the third -- simply because every single market transaction is a subjective interpretation of value, imposed by the actor, who is, in turn, influenced by his perception of the universe. That perception is clearly going to be influenced by his status in society.

Also, we must remember that none of these paradigms are mutually exclusive; believing that markets are relegated to financial transactions is a horrible trap to fall into. We make exchanges in every facet of our lives, based on relative subjective values. This seemingly irrefutable theory is the cornerstone of the Austrian school of economic thought, and dovetails flawlessly with the Popperian notions of subjective perception.

Are you saying the republic wasn't founded on the principles that Mill eventually adopted? And are you suggesting those principles are still a part of our government today?

That would be SWEET!

I'm still going to shit on his lawn, though.

No, but I'd be curious to know how you came up with that...

Good guess, but it's not correct. :-)

Declaring independence would be the first place to start. That would get a strong reaction, I'm sure...

Paco
www.BottomViolation.com

Kim, these are great thoughts. Thank you.

Paco
www.BottomViolation.com

He was a musician, not an economist. He couldn't be perfect...

Paco
www.BottomViolation.com

Didn't you mean "giving your money to random poor people?" That's what re-distribution is, and that's what the egalitarian imperative is imposing on the world at rates not seen since the early 20th century.

Deregulation didn't get us into this mess. Governmental borrowing and artificial demand got us into this mess. If you don't understand what happens to demand when the government facilitates leverage, then you're not arguing from a position of strength. Healthcare, housing, and tuition are prime examples of how artificial demand distorts the economy.