Keep the Market Free

My views on the free market may be a bit unconventional (I'm not saying that sarcastically or ironically, though I realize it may be read that way), but I think the simplest approach is to consider business transactions, in general, as being bilaterally favorable to both the supplier and consumer.  If either party does not agree to the other's terms (for whatever reason), then the transaction should not occur.  

[As an aside, negotiations can be complex here, and contracts should be fulfilled once agreed upon, and "good faith" considerations are important, etc, but I think all that is sort of separate from the main point.]

By my definitions, if anyone is ever obliged to render his goods or services against his will (including but not limited to a violation of his conscience), then that equates to slavery (or "indenturement", maybe, as a less loaded term).  There may be cases where such indenturement is justified, but the onus is on the party making the case that it is in that particular situation.  We shouldn't just assume that difficult scenarios have done that heavy lifting for us, simply by virtue of them being sucky situations.

In practical terms, there are any number of reasons that consumers may not get what they want: the local day care may be at full capacity; the only gym in town may be Curves (what's a guy like me to do?), when my PC acts up, the local Genius Bar may want nothing to do with me and my Windows 10.

There may be no vacancies at the town's only hotel, maybe it's being renovated, or maybe it's just chic and exclusive, and its rates are cost prohibitive for me and my pocketbook.   (But otherwise, this town is great!)

Or, who knows, maybe I dated the local baker's sister, and after we had a falling out, he no longer wants my business.

Or maybe I support my friends' rights to own AR-15s, so the deli-owner down the street doesn't want me as a patron.

Or maybe a city's amphitheater is too small, or the city supports legislation that a performing artist finds odious, so that artist chooses to take his wares elsewhere.

The rationale behind a service provider's terms may seem arbitrary and silly (and at times, maybe petty or spiteful).   They may even seem rather inconsistent to those on the outside.  But, still, ultimately it is their time and labor (or real estate investment, electricity bill, restroom facilities, or whatever) that is being used in support of said service, so my desire to enjoy their resources (for a price I think is fair, of course) shouldn't grant me a de facto claim on that person's time or possessions.

No matter how much I want it or feel as though I need it, I am not entitled to it.

If the local day care closes shop, or if there is no florist for 50 miles, then the burden is on me to figure out how to meet my needs accordingly.  Maybe I make my own floral arrangements or figure out how to bide my own kids' time, or maybe I move to place which offers these services on more agreeable terms.  Either way, I think it's a difficult case to make that the government should step in and force some talented folks to provide those services for me simply because I happen to want them (perhaps even "quite strongly").  

Similarly, if there is a florist, but they don't want to make me the arrangement I'd like, or they're too swamped to help me according to my timeline, or they charge more money then I'm willing to pay, or they don't like the fact I broke their sister's heart, or whatever, then that's their prerogative.

Or, you know, maybe they just do crappy work, so I'd rather drive 30 miles to have someone else handle the flowers for my special day.  Well, that's MY prerogative.

I'd like to offer this as a bit of a thought experiment:   A man walks into a diner and places his order.  As the cashier is calling the order to the cooks in the back, the patron catches a glimpse of someone at the grill that he doesn't like the looks of -- maybe it's ethnicity, maybe clothing, maybe he just recognizes the guy as the bully who made his life hell throughout high school, who knows -- so before the order is "closed out" (for sake of argument, assume there's no harm/no foul from a technical standpoint in cancelling the transaction) he says: You know what, never mind.  I don't want to do business with someone like that.  

What should happen to that patron?  Should he be allowed to deny his end of business from the other party because of these silly, arbitrary reasons or should the court intervene?

Now, flip the scene.   The cashier (who happens to be the owner to keep matters of business authority simple) doesn't like the look of the the patron (maybe he has a picture of a gun on his shirt), so he declines to provide his service to the patron.

Should he be allowed to deny his end of business from another party for silly, arbitrary reasons or should the court intervene?  

Should the expectations and allowances of these two parties be equitable, or should one be forced to participate in a transaction while the other is not?

I'll add one more scene.  The Fed steps in, and tells the shop owner from the second scene to shape up or ship out...

...Maybe he chooses option 3: He has money to burn (he's a greedy businessman, after all), so he keeps on keeping on and just pays the penalty to the State for his bad business practices.

..Or maybe he (eventually) chooses option 2: He closes shop because his conscience doesn't allow him to provide the service that "those people" want him to (whatever that may happen to mean).     So, now, instead of there being a popular, (although, perhaps arbitrarily exclusive) service provider, there is no provider of said service at this location.

In what way have either of these solutions (fines and penalties; shop closing) solved the ostensible problem?  Are those actual, viable options, or is the only acceptable solution to force compliance (which may also include forced servitude)?

On Questions

Asking questions is a good way to gather information.  By design, questions demand answers in reply.  Information rarely exists in a vacuum, though, so questions are generally contextual and often have some level of assumptions baked into them.

Most of the time, these assumptions are innocuous and lack controversy.  

“Would you prefer cake or pie?”

This questions assumes that you would be interested in at least one of those food groups, and it assumes that you have a stronger desire for one of them than for the other (at least at that present moment).   For most folks, those are reasonably safe assumptions.

When assumptions are controversial, though, then the question becomes a loaded question.   The quintessential loaded question example is “Have you stopped beating your wife?”    

The problem with loaded questions (and this is really indicative of all questions), is that simple answers tacitly confirm the embedded assumptions.  On its surface, that question can be answered “no” by people who never started beating their wives to begin with, but answering “no” tacitly confirms the presumption that beatings have been occurring, so it sets a bit of a trap.

A seemingly loaded question isn’t necessarily an invalid or disqualified question, though, because the assumptions may very well be true.   Asking a known abuser if he’s stopped beating his wife is a perfectly legitimate question (though, it’s probably not a good ice breaker).   In that case, the textbook example Loaded Question isn’t really all that loaded.

In a similar vein, good faith questions are sometime loaded with a more controversial assumption than we may realize.  It may be that a friendly host asks the cake vs. pie question of an orphan who happened to lose one parent to a cake-related incident and the other to a freak pie accident.  Maybe this orphan is also diabetic.  In that case, the host’s question will probably elicit bad memories, and might cause the person to assume a defensive or hostile posture.

Ok, so maybe that’s a stretch.   The point of my rambling thoughts, though, is that we should be mindful of our questions, and mindful of the assumptions baked in.    Asking simple questions and demanding simple answers (making statements like “Just answer the question yes or no”) can indicate that questions are being used as weapons rather than as a means of furthering understanding.