The Free Marke is the supperior economic system

(1)You completely bypass the point here. My argument is not that free markets make everyone rich. They do not, however that is not the argument. The argument is that the average person is better off in a freer market. You are right causation does not equal correlation, but links can infact be inferred from correlations. They are not proof in its purest form, but can become a logical indicator as to why things are the way they are. Human development does take into account GDP per capita, but more than that, the three main factors it looks at is average education, average quality of life, and average health. [5] Prices in Norway are high because of government interference. A gallon of gas, is $6.29 in American dollars. Oil Companies in norway, are taxed 78%[2]. This means that to make a profit, the oil companies need to sell their product for higher than they would otherwise, as a price floor has been made, meaning they must sell the product above the equilibrium ( the point where supply and demand reach. ) Norway has other high taxes like this, the income tax in norway hovers around 30%, nearly a third of an individuals income, which screws over the consumer, and the nation mind you, as the European central bank has found that these high taxes actually hurt the average person.[3] Besides, the HDI takes this into account with PPP [6] ( I would also like to interject here that Norway actually has a comparable market freedom to the United States) My question for you here is, if you do not determine being better off by having ability to live your life unopposed, what does make one better off? And why does a free market hinder it? Labour however does not determine value, and has never at best been any more than a minor factor in value. Even at a personal level this is entirely wrong, both definitions, Marx"s and the markets (Though the market is less wrong to a very small degree.) At a personal level, worth is entirely subjective, and there are several, irrational, and non material values that can be lumped onto things. The market value is determined by how much other people want it and how much of them they are, and Marx determines value by how much work is put in ( as you"ve explained). Again this is flawed, because work does not determine much that could possibly give something value. Work does not necessarily determine quality, aesthetics, sentimental value, ect. I grant that generally putting more work into something tends to make it of higher value, but this is normally because the object in question is of better quality. I"ll ask this question. Why does labour determine value, and if it is why would different people pay different prices for the same product if value was not subjective? Allowed? Yes, very much so however, being alive is very good for business, because if people die, you don"t have many customers. People care about the environment and when they have freer choice to buy what they want, something being better for the environment can mean them choosing that product over another. Its irrelevant if something will never be satisfied. My need for food will never subside, it does not follow that food is not beneficial. Neither will my need to be happy. You are correct when you say that because the people will it it doesn"t make it right, however that's an argument for anarchism not government. You have proven your intelligence to me friend, and know that I never see a disagreement in politics as a reason to not engage in friendship. http://www.heritage.org... 1 http://www.ey.com...= /ec1mages/taxguides/GOG-2014/GOG-NO.xml 2 www.ecb.europa.eu/events/pdf/conferences/ws_pubfinance/paper_Furceri.pdf?e6a4da695b59b4e8685dc92b037c6c3c 3 http://eetd.lbl.gov... 4 http://hdr.undp.org... 5 http://hdr.undp.org... 6