So certain things must be enforced on the basis of health

People have to remain healthy for everyone to stay healthy is what im trying to say.

The problem arises in that you don't want to have an enforced nanny state

like we have here

Somewhere in the middle really

It's difficult because damage to third parties can be hard to calculate.

But complications are arising.

Homeless ppl spreading diseases etc

In an ideal capitalist system, you would have to compensate others for the damage you do to them, such as pollution or spreading disease.

That is why even strong libertarians like Milton Friedman see a need for the state there.

But, it's hard to measure damage to another sometimes, such as the amount of pollution you cause.

But wherever we can keep the state out of people's lives, we should.

Especially moralizing legislation. If people would not engage in some "greater good" under a free system, then that means you have to force it onto them if the state mandates it. You cannot position yourself as the moral superior and at the same time force people to be moral. That is what the state proclaims to do all the time, though.

Hete is another thing. The average median is about what you can value a human life. What they could be expected to both earn in a lifetime. The problem is most people can cause more damage around them or to themselves that far exceeds that value in any economic system

It breaks both the free market and socialism

That's not the only value.

I would still be valuable to my family if I was sick and could no longer work.

People think that we no longer value human life in a capitalist system.

But a capitalist system only expresses the values people place on things within it.

My family still values me. I have value and that value is expressed in the money they would exchange for my life.

Capitalism expresses whatever values the people within it hold it.

It's like electricity. It's not good or bad. It's whatever people choose to do with it.

I agree with that. In a free market the cost of living shouldnt exceed values

It wouldnt work, right?

It cannot exceed it.

Any system of economy simply "economizes" what value there is.

If you are on an island and have a 100 coconuts, you can put whatever price on them you like, but it doesn't mean you ever have more than 100 coconuts.

I can miscount, and as long as i never correct myself, ill have more

100 coconuts is alot to keep track of.

Im sure you know why i said that

I'm still not sure what it means that the value of something exceeds something. You seem to be thinking in terms of fixed money supplies.

I think people have the wrong impression where prices come from.

They are an expression, ideally, of the values we place on things.

Yep. I did say that as well

If a life is so valuable that you cannot compensate for it with all the things in the world that is one thing, but that doesn't depend on what price tag you assign to things.

The price tag can never "exceed" any supply. It's purely fictional.

It totally can

Show me how.

Advertisement

I'm not sure I follow.

Also even back in the days the had to put those ridges on coins