what market is that to which you refer???

One of the most significant problems for the objectivist libertarians and their Randian/Straussian forebearers is the notion that a unfettered market will solve all the problems. It is a problem because it requires them to acknowledge a core paradox within their own arguments; that people will make the market choices that are best for them without regulations and so forth, but that the vast majority of the people are stupid idiots. It is a highly elitist position, hierarchically dependent upon a number of factors and positions, but most especially on the coercive threat and use of physical violence as the arbiter of market conflicts. Most people are stupid, and thus they will be poor and choose to give all their money to us, and we won't want to ever give any of it back to them, so we need armies to keep it for us. This is the same classist battle that has gone on for a dozen millenia under whatever new names each subsequent generation wants to call it. I prefer the neo-feudal lords of capital version for this early 21st century post modern era. But those that foment for private property rights and freedom from any control on their accumulation of wealth and demands for armies to protect them, are the ones that are stupid here. And this essay by James K. Galbraith illuminates this better than i can: The Predator State!!!

WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE of American capitalism today? Is it a grand national adventure, as politicians and textbooks aver, in which markets provide the framework for benign competition, from which emerges the greatest good for the greatest number? Or is it the domain of class struggle, even a “global class war,” as the title of Jeff Faux’s new book would have it, in which the “party of Davos” outmaneuvers the remnants of the organized working class?

The doctrines of the “law and economics” movement, now ascendant in our courts, hold that if people are rational, if markets can be “contested,” if memory is good and information adequate, then firms will adhere on their own to norms of honorable conduct. Any public presence in the economy undermines this. Even insurance—whether deposit insurance or Social Security—is perverse, for it encourages irresponsible risktaking. Banks will lend to bad clients, workers will “live for today,” companies will speculate with their pension funds; the movement has even argued that seat belts foster reckless driving. Insurance, in other words, creates a “moral hazard” for which “market discipline” is the cure; all works for the best when thought and planning do not interfere. It’s a strange vision, and if we weren’t governed by people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, who pretend to believe it, it would scarcely be worth our attention.

The idea of class struggle goes back a long way; perhaps it really is “the history of all hitherto existing society,” as Marx and Engels famously declared. But if the world is ruled by a monied elite, then to what extent do middle-class working Americans compose part of the global proletariat? The honest answer can only be: not much. The political decline of the left surely flows in part from rhetoric that no longer matches experience; for the most part, American voters do not live on the Malthusian margin. Dollars command the world’s goods, rupees do not; membership in the dollar economy makes every working American, to some degree, complicit in the capitalist class.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/predator_state.html