Government entities picking winners and losers in the market is always a bad thing, but when the most efficient market solution causes harm, should we just let it happen? 

 YES! Does anyone think humans would have evolved this far had the difficulty of surviving been removed? We’d still be archaea! 

 True, but isn't the advancement of technology supposed to improve our lives?  If we're all just supposed to deal with survival of the fittest, doesn't that negate 10,000+ years of technological development? 

 No, because our knowledge doesn’t disappear. Maybe it would as a result of a global cataclysm, or a mad leader that destroys a couple of generations like Pll Pot, but even if some tech goes out of use it still exists and can still be integrated in to new advances. 

 Ok, but that includes knowledge of history and what is or is not harmful. Shouldn't we be avoiding what is harmful even if the market says it's the most efficient way of doing something? That's the trouble I have with pure free market systems. They ignore history too much. 

 Can you give me an example of something that is harmful and efficient? 

 Oh, let's just go with the top stories in the news.  Guns. Shooting in Georgia by a 14 year old, shootings along I-5 in Seattle, Shootings every day somewhere in the country.  Free market solution is ... what, let anyone buy anything? 

 So everyone is punished for a bad actor? This is harmful, yet inefficient. It doesn’t create wealth. A right is a covenant that makes you responsible to everyone. Each of us has a right to life. To maintain mine I must maintain yours. Therefore, yes, buy a gun in the service of life. 

Ethical people, people without mental instability, don’t do things like this. 

What is the root cause? I don’t know, but my guess is the food and drug industry have become corrupted by greed. Name one drug that actually cures something and does not cause a secondary harm. Even antibiotics do damage to you. Name a processed food that is actually nourishing. What inspires the greed? Money, that by its nature, loses value. Companies must, through intended and unintended fraud, seek to beat the constant devaluation of the measuring stick that is money. 

Then there are the collectivists. 

If you haven’t read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, I highly recommend you do. 

 Yes, we should and do avoid what is harmful, and yes people are hurt in a free market system, but it only because some actors are not ethical(greed’s influence causes people to take short cuts for greater gain than they deserve), or the injured has made a decision that is inefficient(i.e. ignoring or mis-estimating due diligence). 

The free market is always heading in the direction of efficiency. Every creature on the planet wants the most gain for the least amount of effort, and that is regulated by risk taking depending on the situation. 

 I think he also failed to realize the power of technological progress. I think he assumed the terrible working conditions of early industrialization would persist forever, and that capital wouldn’t compound and spread wealth to all people. Or maybe he was just a petty vindictive man who enjoyed stoking the flames of jealousy and hatred. Idk 

 Dirigisme = Cool! 
New word for me and a good one!! 

 I heard Natalie Smolenski mention this word on What Bitcoin Did. I think it's interesting,  but I am not sure I fully understand it. It's like a command economy,  right? 

 state control of economic and social matters 

 Is it pronounced "deary jizz me"?  

 preach to the masses 

 Capitalism is the natural way to resolve a coincidence of wants & as such capitalism exists even when communism is imposed. 

Capitalism has a funny dualism with communism in that pure communism can never be achieved, while pure capitalism can only ever be suppressed. It's ironic that the virtuous goals of communism seem to be only achievable via capitalism & voluntarism. It's only through selfishly pursuing our own goals in a system with aligned incentives that all humans are able to thrive. 

 Now do corporatism which is what we’ve lived under our entire lives. 
Capitalism is science fiction. 

 Not science fiction. Elements of capitalism exist under what you call corporatism, it's just suppressed via fiat currencies & govt in general.

Capitalism existed where governments didn't exist or were very small. It's been a long time since we had free markets & pure capitalism at scale.  

 That's what she said.
(The word) 

 And not showering😜 

 Free-market Capitalism = natural selection in the wild 

Crony capitalism = artificial selection in a zoo 

 IMHO from an economic pov the only true merit of Marxist analysis is to realize the inner historical trend of capitalist economies to monopoly/oligopoly.To this regard:
on one hand the diminishing rate of return of capital assets provided by Marx as an explanation for this process is empirically and historically problematic if not completely untrue (technical progress is the clue here).
On the other hand I've never fully understood which real role/responsability (if any) the state/central authorities has in this gradual decline of free market competition through time (at least since the industrial revolution).
It could be intrinsic to free market capitalism even without state intervention and meddling.
Taking to the extreme the latter, the 'leviathan' could be the natural (by)product of an initial state of 'free market' in security and defence given the natural tendency of men to violence and the self reinforcing mechanism of centralization of means to commit it. See as a reference the european transition from feudal small and weak states to large absolute monarchies thanks to warfare.
 

 Dirigisme = state leads private enterprises and capital accumulation
Corporatism = state and large corporations are so in bed together that you cannot distinguish them. (Syn. crony capitalism)
Statism = state owns (many or all) enterprises

 

 Marx can eat poop.