Bitcoin Forum

It always pains me to see the logic that somehow connects Bill Gates' wealth with a squatter camp's squalor.

"Bill is richer than them all, they are all poor, the connection is obvious!"

There is undoubtedly an exploiter class but I think liberals have taken an unduly simplistic view of this.

Corporations are not a feature of a truly free society. Corporations provide limited liabilities to the individuals who run them. Limited liabilities are rights granted by government, it is not inherent in free-market capitalism. It is in fact opposed to it. So please stop referring to the evils corporations commit due to limited liability and calling it the results of the free market. Libertarians HATE the idea that a corporation can be let off the hook by a government judge or legislation for damage to the property, lives and health of others.

Agorism has a useful model on this. They divide capitalists into three catagories.
Good => Venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, risk takes (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg)
Neutral => Holders of capital, no real ideology
Bad => Those who use government power, fraud or violence to raid the public

Both liberals and libertarians agree that the rich who are obviously rich because of government help need to have their privileges removed. Unfortunately liberals attempt to do this by introducing taxes and regulations on all the capitalist classes indiscriminately. Libertarians also do not make enough of a point that there is a dangerous kind of capitalist, the ones who are willing to manipulate legislation to their benefit.

It's because these people aren't, per say, capitalists. Capitalism is based on the right to private property. The people you describe are corporatist. They don't care 2 seconds for private property simply because they can bypass it thanks to the privileges they receive from the government. You might consider that this argument in semantics doesn't hold enough weight in the face of the global issues at hand to be made, but some think on the other hand that rigorous semantics are a necessary part of understanding and fixing issues such as this one.

You seem to have the persistent misunderstanding common among many of a generally leftist persuasion as to what exactly "limited liability" means.  All it means is that the simple act of being a shareholder in a corporation does not by itself open you to liability for what the corporation did (the operative theory being that you as a shareholder don't have sufficient control over the micro-level doings of the corporation).  It does not mean that the corporation, its officers, and employees have any limits on their liability for the actions of the corporation or its agents.

Are you talking about Classical Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) or Social liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) or the Liberal Party (http://www.liberal.ca/)?

This whole issue is very easy to understand with the simple distinction of capitalism (properly understood free markets) and corporatism (which is what we have now). So long as those terms are respected and understood, it's easy to distinguish the good people and organizations from the bad ones.

And in a free society, "corporations" broadly speaking would still exist. Their liabilities would be limited via insurance as opposed to government. So, entrepreneurs could take risks without worrying about financial ruin, and anyone hurt by the entrepreneur could be compensated by the insurance fund.

And it'll all be done with Bitcoins =)

Fascism would be a better word for the system than corporatism.  Except that people get all worked up over the petty tyrannies of the Fascist Party in Italy and think of them, rather than the major tyrannies that it really represents.

Please compare these scenarios:

(A) Alice and Bob are partners in a cattle business. They round up the cattle themselves, and slaughter the cattle themselves, and they split the profits.  One day, their cattle get into the road and there is a car accident. Who is negligent?  The answer:  Alice and Bob.

(B) Alice and Bob decide to invest some money in a cattle business, which they do, and they hire a cattle-man up in Montana to take care of their ranch, and to handle all the work and responsibilities related to their cattle. One day, their cattle get into the road and there is a car accident. Who is negligent?

THE ANSWER IS: The cattle-man is primarily responsible, NOT Alice and Bob. (And the MORE involved they get in their own business, versus hiring someone to do it on their behalf, the more directly responsible they would become for its actions, and thus the more liable they could be found in court.)

If Pepsi Corporation is found committing some crime, it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold the stockholders liable instead of the management. The liability properly falls to management; in fact, that is what they're being paid for! (To take on the responsibility and liability for the organization.)

If shareholders were not able to safely invest their money without being exposed to great liabilities, then certainly the level of investment overall in our economy would drop! No one wants to expose himself to liabilities for acts he hasn't even committed. Instead he'll choose not to invest in that business.

I think you'll find that the general differences between the various corporate structures, in terms of how they place liability, etc is a result of these very real pressures in our society, that are a natural result of the right to free association.

--------

Where Corporations become abusive, is not because courts allow investors to have separation from personal liability. Rather, the abuse comes into play as the entire tax-and-incentive system becomes skewed, pebble-by-pebble, in favor of those who lobby Congress to structure a system that infringes upon our liberties. (Including our right to free association.) Over time that system is what results in a fascist marriage between the government and the corporations that grow up around it. It is not property rights that does this, but the lack of them.

— The real cost we pay is in terms of our rights and freedoms, as the income tax is then used to shape our behavior by way of the penalties, incentives, and deductions that are built into the system. Designed, of course, by lawyers and lobbyists for powerful corporations, passed by Congress, and imposed upon you, and your parents, and your children — all in order to shape your behavior, and to structure the system so that working for one of those corporations is the only way you can afford to pay your bills.

— The hidden tax of inflation, especially on our poor and elderly.

— The high personal cost of the federal income tax, which just barely covers the amount of our interest payments on the national debt. (No, it doesn’t pay for any of our government services...)

— The national debt itself, which presumably must be defaulted on at some point, or inflated away, in either case devastating the savings of our elderly and forcing them to rely more on taxpayers for their medical and other care. This will unfortunately drive a cultural attitude of resentment towards the elderly, when previously they were the ones with the most resources (and wisdom) in any family.

— While women are a great benefit and value to the workforce, the fact remains that many of them only work because they have to, not because they desire to. This is because the cost of living is so high, due to the income tax and its secondary effects on the rest of the economy. Many do not realize that the high personal cost they pay every day, as their children are raised in government farms, is directly and solely in order to service the national debt.

— The cost we pay in terms of the wars that are financed by our national debt — wars that otherwise the powers that be would be unable to afford through direct taxation, yet now have foisted upon us to pay through the blood of our children, and the mortgaging of their future to the banks.

— The cost we pay in terms of having a monopoly banking system, which has control over our money supply, the life’s blood of our economy! We all know that banks are bureaucratic and slow, and frustrating — it’s because they have a monopoly! And our economy pays the price of having a monopoly banking system, just as the Soviet Union paid the price for central planning, and just as ordinary, hard-working German citizens paid the price during the Weimar Inflation, when all of their savings was stolen from them by an elite — eventually leading to the rise of the Nazi party.

— The cost we pay in terms of the Great Depressions that are cyclically brought upon our nation through the misallocations that are consequential to the mistake of allowing a central committee of corrupt bankers to have direct spending access to everyone’s savings and retirement.

— The cost we pay in our general standard-of-living, while our children are raised in government schools and by MTV: because we are all too busy working (with no vacation), as the infrastructure of our once-great nation crumbles all around us, along with her culture. Anyone can see the roads have potholes after a rain. Will today’s Western Man, having grown dull and fat amidst all his luxury, awake to find the Empire of the West has crumbled around him along with its morals? Do not the other nations have the same access to western economic knowledge and theories of government to become as powerful as we? Do we think that we are so much better than other people, such that living in less luxurious circumstances than we are currently accustomed is somehow outside of the bounds of our potential future?

— The cost we pay in terms of our personal security, and that of our women and children, as our economy declines and our military might necessarily declines with it. (And as the decline in culture and economy leads to higher costs of blood and treasure due to increases in crime, as happened to Argentina in 2001 when she ceased to be the tenth richest nation in the world, and instead became a place where families had to eat out of garbage cans.)

— The cost we pay as we age, and are forced into government-hospital-projects, and government-elderly-care-and-quality-of-life-facilities, and as our children are funneled into government “employment opportunities” building dams, nation-building, UN patrolling, ditch digging, driving trucks and burying bodies for Uncle Sam, because the economy sucks so bad that no one can get a normal job or start a company anymore–because the institutions that once acted as our agents protecting our freedoms, with one-representative-per-every-30,000 people–with every neighborhood having a voice–have instead become tentacled abusive nightmares, answering only to bankers, large corporations, government employees unions, and sporadic voter anger.

— The cost we paid in terms of our skill-sets, competitiveness, education, and off-shored industry, as a result of being allowed to grow dull and fat through several decades of economic misallocation by way of the world’s use of dollars as a reserve currency. They sent us their microwaves, their automobiles, their minerals, and their agriculture, while they starved and worked in slave mills, in return for worthless paper dollars, while we sat around playing video games and flipping real-estate, jumping from bubble to bubble like drunken fools, laughing at the worry of our grandparents towards our generation.

Well, they say that in a downturn, money returns to its rightful owner — a lesson we are likely to learn at the hands of China.

The-powers-that-be want half of us to blame the "welfare recipients" while the other half blame the "corporations" meanwhile we are voting for the same two parties, and carrying the same tainted money around in our pockets.

Is it already too late for the West?

Corporatism was Mussolini's term, and it does seem accurate from a descriptive point of view. But I see the current system in the US Police State more of a type of neo-fascism, as the people behind the scenes could not care less about the sovereignty of the US or any other nation, just their ability to totally control and profit from their slaves, the rest of us.  In historic fascism nationalism was a key feature, but there was a more subtle feature of empire-building.  With the proclaimed NWO, that latter feature is becoming more prominent, thus the term neo-fascism.

The false left-right political dichotomy is just a distraction, just a means of divide-and-conquer.  I don't think that real capitalism exists anymore (except on a small scale among the endangered entrepreneurs, small business folk), just some form of perverted monopoly- or duopoly capitalism.  And socialism was always a joke, a means of suckering certain people in society into thinking they would get something for nothing. So I think that the Bitcoin movement could contribute to a new and more honest means of exchanging our energies and building a more honest and effective society.

I am liberal, but I am confused regarding the intent and meaning of your post.

Im trying to understand, and I will try do make a guess:
Are you suggesting that, because my views are liberal, I believe that Bill Gates (and people like him) is directly influencing global or local poverty? Maybe my answer is yes, but not necessarily the way you think.

do you?

Yes, but I dont see what that has to do with my liberal views.
Bill Gates influences poverty when he:
-donates to charity.
-create jobs.
-create technology.
-creates monopolies.
-is involved in corruption.
-ect ect.

So I have to ask again. What are you trying to tell me?

Thanks. Usually when I head something marked for "Liberals" I regret it.

Bill Gates is a patent monopolist; a beneficiary of the ruling elite, and hence a member of the political class. Bad example.  :P

In general, I am a big fan of Agorist Class Theory and recommend it often.

LOL true, but even he doesn't qualify for what liberals accuse most of the rich of ;)

What is your definition of liberals?

liberals: more than one liberal ;)

What is you definition of liberal then?  ::)

Robin Hood was a liberal, he was well off himself but took from the rich (indiscriminately but on the basis of valid abuses by some) and gave to the poor while wanting special privileges for maids and merry men.

lol, no offence meant by that one, just had to make that joke :D

But seriously in this context I mean those who believe that being rich in and of itself is grounds to justify taking that wealth and redistributing it.

In that case, is it not better to make up a new word for that political standpoint instead of making up a new definition for a word that already has one?

Charity used to mean love, left used to refer to those seated on the left of the French house, liberal used to mean quite libertarian, unfortunately it happens. Semantics aside, where do you stand on the issue of the basis of having wealth as a reason to be taxed more?

Why do you think some people are trying to change the meaning of the word liberal? And why do you support it?

Give me a specific example. It is hard to answer such a broad and open question clearly, but I can try; I support a system that can maintain a balanced distribution of power and secure the freedom of its people. If taxing the wealthy more is for the greater good and has general support I would not have an issue with that. It is not unusual having taxes that benefits the wealthy, be that politicians, businesses or organized crime for example.

Pedantry.

Impossible and your idea of liberty is laughable and disgusting.


You hate humanity. You hate the idea of a man having a right to his labor and being able to sustain himself how he wishes. You hate life.



...and -- believe it or not -- you support these things.

I don't support or oppose it, I'm just trying to have a functional conversation about the practical effects of proportional taxation.

We both want a " better world" we just disagree once the dynamics of getting there. I believe and can argue that taxing the rich and misspending on behalf of the poor hampers both the rich and the poor due to unavoidable natural economic consequences.

One or even a few perspectives cannot simply define a better world for life at large.

Atlas, YouTube "Mozart was a red"

I don't like Rand either.

I honestly think our views are very similar, if not identical, on many areas. But we communicate about it in a different way and we might care more strongly about different things or methods.
As opposed to Atlas I find it to be useful to be able to communicate clearly and make our ideas to be understood by each other.
Most times there are no right or wrong answer, just different approaches for different situations (that are often understood differently as well).

I would absolutely be for a tax free system under the right conditions, but I have to say these condition would be rare to find in the world we live in today.
A tax free system seems to me to be more of a luxurious benefit for a wealthy society rather than a solution to get rid of poverty.

I will admit I am failing to benefit anybody in my emotional expasms due to a lack of elaboration or otherwise. I will attempt to be more constructive.

You can never compromise with a thief. You either deny the right to yourself or claim your birthright.

I feel that my labor and its fruits will always be mine regardless of anybodys whims. It should not be up for argument. When it comes to my views, I feel every individual should be empowered in terms of his right to himself and true wealth will flourish. To centralize a monopoly on force in the name of universal pleasure and steal in its name is not a righteous nor effective solution. It has yet to be shown through all the life that has been lost in government rises and falls.

I live in the United States and for much of my life I enjoyed the belief that my country was relatively free and stood behind the values of a free market. I have long since been disabused of this myth but now and again something happens to hammer home just how false it is.

I now see -- very clearly -- that all the talk about a 'free market' is strictly intended for the common man. When an ordinary person has fallen on hard times they really need to learn the value of taking responsibility for their actions, show some initiative, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and other platitudes. Being disciplined by the market is good for ordinary people.

But not for the wealthy. When the wealthy and powerful fell on hard times, responsibility for  their actions was out of the question. Not a single one of them has ever been held accountable. All have received their bailouts. Socialism was good enough for them.

I own a small business and I believe in genuine capitalism. I believe in actual free markets. I just don't believe you can find any in the United States (or elsewhere?). The process of starting up an off line business revealed a lot to me about how the 'system works'. My research into possible opportunities with bitcoins has been similarly educational. In both cases what I have found is a system where those who make the rules do so primarily for the benefit of those who have already broken them, in order to make it very difficult for anyone else to succeed.  Above all else our government exists to make sure those who have everything, always will.

But I am an optimist. :)  When problems have no solution they can sometimes be transcended. Bitcoins are a wonderful example of that, and they give me a lot of hope. I will do all I can to be a part of the success that is to come.

I agree with your view of "individual should be empowered in terms of his right to himself and true wealth will flourish" but I cant help to think that a lot of the words and scenarios you use are overly exaggerated.
I understand that some people would benefit (or even want) to be controlled by a government, as well as the opposite. Being that you are born where you are born it is not unusual to end up in a society that does not appeal to you. This usually leaves you with three options: submit, rebel or escape.

Ultimately you are the one that can determine how much power you want to have over yourself. If someone steals from you it is your choice how you deal with it. And unless we see some form of miracle there will always be theft, force, violence and corruption no matter where you go or what you do or what you call what. As long as some people can have more money, power or fame than others, these things will happen on both ends of the scale.

What I am trying to say, I think, is that getting rid of government is not the issue here as a government has no one true form and always will exist in one form or another within a society. It could anything from anarchistic government, theocratic government, communistic government to privatized government. Every idea you might have regarding how to organize a group of people includes the term government.

I do not mind paying my taxes. If I felt that my government were stealing from me I probably would not be in it as it would be equally bad harvesting the benefits (if any) without any or minimum contribution.

I would be intrigued learning more about your views on a less emotional level. I have no problem seeing that you have lot of passion for it :)

There is no exaggeration when people are not recognized to the right to their own life anywhere.

Here we go with the social contract theory rubbish. The truth is we are enslaved by the same people: the central bankers. There is no escape unless you deny yourself the right to voluntarily trade with people.

This is where Bitcoin comes in.



So, you're essentially avoiding the argument at hand by bending words to your will. Yeah, nice illusion.


Yes.

Communists think that every dollar a capitalist earns is a steal from those workers who get paid by the capitalist.

@nostrum

One thing we libertarians do have a strong definition of is a state or government. It is any group of people who are willing to initiate violence, either directly through guns, knifes, fists, wmds, planes, etc. to achieve their goals and now hold a monopoly on the enforcement of violence. Others who initiate violence in spite of the monopoly can be thought of aspirant rulers.  

Oligarchs are those who exploit the current monopoly to enact laws that benefit them. Think established banking sector. These people are often "rich" but are not true industrialists, they control markets, they do not create or improve them. Recently the son of the former CEO of a local cellphone company gave a speech about "What the optimum amount of competition is in a market" Essentially what he was saying was that he could not conduct business efficiently without a government guarantee that he can do it with a captive market and willing fellow monopolists.

In these protected environments politicians often attempt to enact restraints on the protected parties to attempt to mitigate the unavoidable abuses that come with such a privileged position. These are the regulations touted to protect us from the "evil" rich. The oligarchs very often get the regulations written in their favour or removed, which for a while leads to the further unleashing of the chaos their protected positions guarantee. Then people turn around and blame the "free market" and "deregulation". If there were true deregulation then the protections would have been lifted and the pampered cats would have to fend for themselves among far leaner, meaner and more plentiful competitors.

There people's wealth need to be taken away from them, not by force but by simply removing the unnatural protections they have enacted for themselves.

A comment from Barack Obama's inauguration speech sticks in my mind as I read your posts "It is no longer an issue of whether government is too big or too small, but whether or not it works." Entertain with us for a moment that this question of "Is government too big?" is still on the table, because it can lead to solutions to very much of what we see happening today.

If government is too big; it will be spread to thinly.
If government is too big; it will have resources in one place, while needing them in another.
If government is too big; it will meddle in that which worked fine.
If government is too big; it will need more money than necessary.
If government is too big; it will take too much of your money.
If government is too big; and your money is not enough, they will borrow to much
If government is too big; and your money is not enough and no body wants to loan them money any more, then they will print the difference (IE "loan" from the central bank)

A medium-sized government is needed for enforcing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is why we need medium-sized governments:

- Universal/socialized Health Care.
- Worker's regulation, minimum wage, vacations, workers' rights.
- Police, firemen, administration, public schools, roads.
- Judges and free public servant lawyers for the defense.

- Universal/socialized Health Care.
The implications for the future of medicine are absolutely shocking. There is no mechanism for creating timely, tested and needed new medicines through socialized health care. IE who decides what resources to throw at which diseases? The free market (truly free) can do this very efficiently by ensuring that there is always a big reward for producing cheap effective medications. Most of what we see today in medicine is the result of profit seeking, not of altruistic concern for the well-being of others. If you think today's system is somehow abusive, compare it to what was available a 100 years ago and at what costs.

- Worker's regulation, minimum wage, vacations, workers' rights.
Abuses under the so called "robber barons" are often used to defend this point, a much misunderstood period of history. I live in a country that has some of the most progressive labour protections on earth. The result? 19 years of economic growth in conjunction with 19 years of unemployment at higher numbers than that of the USA during the great depression. People literally cannot get hired in a booming economy and live in poverty because of it. Here you have to ask yourself something about a person who working in what you consider to be terrible conditions; if he is not being threatened by violence to be there, what were his other choices?

- Police, firemen, administration, public schools, roads.
Maybe, no, no, no never ever no! and no.

- Judges and free public servant lawyers for the defense.
Independent arbitrators, pro-bono work from qualified and motivated lawyers will more than make up for this. You would also have far less legal messes if there were far fewer laws.

You don't need the State to investigate medicine to have a Universal Health Care (UHC). I mean, the UHC means that the State pays the doctors and the medicines, but the State can buy medicines to private companies!

Anyways, I think that the State should also fund investigations. Who decides what resources to throw at which diseases? Well, you should let university professors decide their investigative branches.


Free market supporters do not understand that a man is not free to do anything if his life depends on it.

You'll do ANYTHING to survive. But once your basic needs are covered, AND ONLY THEN, you are a free man and you can freely decide to do whatever you want. And only free men can create a free market.

So there are markets that need to be regulated or at least intervened by the Government in order to create other free markets. The end should be to have a free society, meaning a society of free men: the economy is just the means to that end.

Violence? Violence is getting paid 600 € for a 40h/week job even having a university degree (which means that you can be more productive). That thing IS violence. He's being threatened by the fact that if he doesn't take his slave job he'll be hungry and he won't be able to feed his children.

Truth is the rich people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but the rich people actually need the poor people to get richer... so the poor people must be clever enough to make laws that benefit them so they don't get poorer.


Whatever.


Yeah, laws should be simpler, that's true. You can also try finding a pro-bono lawyers now.

No, you should let the individuals decide and form their own research groups.

You are coerced by your body to sustain it. Live with it. Welcome to nature, parasite.


That overpriced degree was forced upon you by a state monopoly on education. The poor wages are also a related side effect.



This is due to corporatism and an overly involved government. Everybody would on an equal playing field if others weren't given a grant on government force. So, yes, it is a matter of law.

regardless system/principles/ideology you bring into [intolerable/scientifially-questionable]extremes, result are same:facism[of any kind].
but thats the poin and main reason to value thing, named "common sense".
look at EU, for few ages employed mild form of socialism with great success.
and then read "Manifesto" of K.Marx[or derivatives].
if domination/unification/unity is so useful as advertised, why, do you think, biosphere is dominated by multi-cell organisms, not gigantic amoebas ?
same on social/country/worldwide -level.
use common sense and not "fix" things, that's not broken.

The poor have gotten much, much, much rucher over the last 200 years. The rich get richer AND the poor get richer, just not as fast. Envy is a horrible thing.

@Atlas, come on dude, you will only incite people to reject your premises if you call them parasites. He might be a very productive, supportive individual with an ideology me and you don't agree with.

Well, he apparently supports the idea of people being obligated to the whims of others.

Sometimes people do what they do until they know better. Hopefully you also see yourself as doing things today that tomorrow you will know better about and not as a completely all wise being.

All I know for certain is that I know nothing.

However, I have a preference for life.

They form their own research groups, paid by the government with taxes. Then their research is published for all people's benefit.

And that system works: that's how transistors were invented (thanks to US Department of Defense). And that's how microchips were invented too (NASA paid the research to create the first integrated circuit to get to the moon). US Department of Defense also invented internet.

Yeah, taxes can pay off pretty well if the government invests in investigation.

How much did the moon landings cost? NOBODY would have financed such project by himself (not even the biggest corporation in the world). But even if you only take into account the byproduct of creating the first microchip, well, it was absolutely worth it for HUMANITY. I mean, how many billions do the IT generate every years using transistors and microchips?


Our body is communist. All the blood and oxygen is distributed to all cells, for example. Also, no cell is unemployed. Welcome to nature, human.

Wealth, if it's distributed in a good enough way, can feed every human in the planet. But with the actual system, there are as many obese as people suffering from severe famine. If we compare our economic system with our body's cells, they are much more efficient, and much more socialists than us.


Poor wages are a side effect of having a too high Gini Index, meaning wealth is not distributed in a fair enough way.


Gini Index in America has gone up and up since Reagan's neoliberalism took place. Before Reagan, taxes for the very rich were up to 90%, for example. That was a GOOD thing.

No, the powerful few get to decide through the enablement of people's stolen money called taxes. Then the research is published according to the whims of the higher establishment. Also, who is to say those innovations couldn't be created otherwise?


My cells work with each other and give to each other because they choose to. No gun, no force is used against them.

No, if people choose to take care of themselves they can live with the resources available to them. If these resources are denied due to the whims of the powerful, they die or live enslaved lives. If people wish to work together, they can.  Welcome to history.


It's a subjective measure that means absolutely nothing and it should have no say in my life and how I should live. You can take your Keynesian pseudo-economics and blow it out your ass. Anyways, wealth would be up for grabs by everybody if it weren't left to the hands of the powerful.



Cool story, friend. I remember when there wasn't a personal income tax in this country that wasn't left to be used by the central banks and light Bernanke's cigars.

There are innovations waiting to be found on the moon. A company could fund it on a whim if but the moon landing surely isn't a human right. ...and the microchip being the essential tool it is, could easily be funded by independent demand as well.

Also, just because a thief created something awesome with his loot doesn't justify his crime.

To say violence is necessary to prosper and build is blasphemy upon humanity and life as a whole.

The state is the monopoly of violence. And I include low wages inside the concept you call violence.

There is no such thing as a low wage. You get paid for whatever value you produce, period. If people do not wish to pay higher, it's their prerogative unless you want to use force against them. I guess two wrongs make a right in your world.

Rich people have the monopoly on:
- Freedom. Because you only have freedom once you've covered your most vital needs.
- Power to decide.
- Money.

With those monopolies in place, the rest of the people are not free when they enter a "free market" zone.

So, you want to spread freedom by restricting choices.  Good call.

Objectively define 'rich' and I'll get back to you. My mother certainly felt rich despite being raised by her low-waged military father.

What is at the heart of a liberal society? It is to uphold that we have a right to offend and a duty to tolerate offence. George Orwell said: if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. I think there are common values to all humankind. We see them in the commandments, and in one sense we don’t need to be told them because we know instinctively what is wrong and what is right. So liberals have to do that.