The OP said he thought Comcast was the worst example of free market policies in action that he could think of.
Leaving aside that Comcast is not operating in anything like a free economy, I was trying to make the point that if it was truly the worst example he could think of, then he should probably reconsider his criticism of free market policies.
I cited Venezuela as the worst (contemporary) example of a planned economy that I could think of, as a counterpoint to his worst example in Comcast.
But yes, the facts are that:
* Almost all economies today are mixed (that is, neither entirely free or entirely planned).
* They mostly work pretty well, in the sense that people nowadays are much better off, by almost every conceivable measure, than in the past.
My argument is that:
* Nations are better off to the extent that their markets are free (e.g. Denmark vs. Cuba).
* Leaving aside the economic outcomes, coercion in economic matters is as morally wrong as in others (e.g. forcing someone to take a customer they don't want is as wrong as prohibiting them from taking a customer they do want; for concrete examples, think gay wedding cakes and legislated segregation on buses).
Yeah, if the worst thing that's happened to you under capitalism is being overcharged by Comcast, you're still having a pretty good day and should look for worse examples. All sorts of things from the US healthcare system to Philip "unacceptable face of capitalism" Green might count as worse.
Thankyou for acknowledging those facts. It's interesting that you choose to mention Denmark. My point was that suggesting applying even the tiniest bit of regulation to a near-monopoly market participant immediately brings out the comparison to Venezuela; it's just hyperbole in the opposite direction. I don't think people are arguing that the US should become more like Venezuela in order to reduce their broadband bills; more that it should learn from Denmark.
My experience of libertarianism is people arguing that any amount of abuse of power by private actors is fine, it's just that government is magic and any use of its power will immediately collapse into abuse. This rests on contorted definitions of "coercion" that don't include restriction of economic options or even anti-market actions by private actors.
"Free market" and "unlimited power for market actors" aren't quite the same thing.
Yes. Personally I blame a misreading of Rand - in particular, Rand's fiction - for this.
People are often surprised to hear that the majority of villains in Atlas Shrugged are businessmen, who seek to obtain political power - that is, the power to legally coerce - over their competitors and customers.
So, if you support capitalism (unfettered free markets) you also need to support strong, objective courts that can severely punish companies that attempt to deal with their customers by fraud (misleading advertising, etc.) or force (cronyism, bribery, corruption).
It's like XP. The practices are mutually reinforcing :)
