I was reading an interesting article on one of my favorite topics, the fact that sharks, despite pop culture myths, really do get cancer. However, at the bottom of the article I ran across something that struck me as particularly interesting, yet another example of the logic underlying liberalism ("Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences", "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 4 - Our Foolish Compatriots", "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 12 - I'm OK, You're A Mess", "Those Other People", "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens", "Seeing People As Stupid"), specifically an attempt to show that "the market doesn't work". Now, this has been a common claim from everyone from fascists to communists to union agitators to liberal professors, so I suppose I shouldn't claim it is unique to liberalism, but this particular form of the argument, relying as it does upon an unspoken (and as well will see) incorrect understanding of the market ("Cutting "Costs"", "Misunderstanding Profits",  "Again?", "Government Efficiency", "Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism", "Pro Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc", "Bad Economics Part 10", "The High Cost of Not Wasting Food", "Utopian Pipe Dream"), as well as an implicit assumption I will later show is unfounded, at least in this context ("Absolute Values", "The Right Way", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "The Most Misleading Word", "Luxury and Necessity"), is the form the argument I seem to encounter most often, and, when offered in this specific form, is most often accompanied by demands for various "common sense" liberal proposals. ("The Lunacy of "Common Sense"", ""Seems About Right", Another Lesson in Common Sense and Its Futility", "A Look at Common Sense", "Res Ipsa Loquitur") But, rather than simply speak in generalities, let me post the comment itself, and then explain why it errs, and how. Or rather, I will post a short series of comments, ending with the comment in question.

The first comment offered by what I assume is a liberal commentator is as follows:

Great article.  I guess this demonstrates that depending on the hype, humans will tend to disbelieve the truth, embrace the fictions, and make up almost anything that comes in the middle.

Another striking example of how the "market" can solve all our problems.

The response, which is correct as far as it goes, bringing up some points I made in "The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"" and "Tyranny Without Tyrants", argues as follows:

Like incentives and the computer from The Hitchhiker's Guide answering 42, markets do work. They just don't always work like you are expecting them to. You need to know what question the markets are answering. In this case, the market is supplying shark cartliage[sic]. Why? 1. No cure-all for cancer actually exists, and 2. people are badly informed.

You can only assume that a non-market based approach will work because you are assuming that well-informed people will be running it.

To which the original commenter replies at great length, giving us the post which we shall spend most of our time discussing:

Actually the problem is simpler and more serious than that.  It is probably impossible for a single individual to be informed enough to make good decisions on everything they encounter.  Even if they are qualified, they may well lack the time to rigorously pursue such an effort, so invariably our modern society requires an element of trust. 

As a result, the most likely outcome of any unregulated market decision is exploitation of popular beliefs.  As with most human endeavors, this wouldn't ordinarily be a problem but when vast amounts of money and technology can be brought to bear, we begin to do serious damage to the world and environment we're in. 

Most disciplines ranging from political science to philosophy and science clearly recognize the fallacy of considering popular opinion as a basis for rational decisions.  I can't imagine why economics is based on the principle that they are somehow exempt from the effect.

As you can see, it is hardly a unique argument. In fact, I am sure everyone reading this has heard something similar at one time or another. It is, as I said, the traditional liberal approach to economics. In fact, it mirrors their approach to almost any social ill. Arguing that the present solution is imperfect, they then call for change, ignoring the simple question of whether the solution will be better or worse. ("Doing Something Revisited, Again", "Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything", ""...Then Who Would Do it?"", "With Good Intentions", "In The Most Favorable Light","Government Quackery", "Utopianism and Disaster", "The Threat of Perfection", "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", "In Defense of Discrimination", "A Statute of Limitations for Race", "How to Handle Idiots", "Back Again", "Best of the Web gets It Very, Very Wrong", "You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer", "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education", "Every Kid Likes Hot Dogs", "Who Will Decide", "The Runaway Stagecoach", "Some Thoughts on "Summerhill"") It has been offered as an argument, as my list of links shows, when seeking solutions for everything from discrimination to education to economic inequality. And its shortcomings in this regard have been quite thoroughly analyzed in any number of my previous posts.

However, those arguments are not the whole story. In fact, this argument fails in a number of ways, which we shall look at in order as soon as we have them listed. First, as just stated, it assumes perfection is achievable, and demands any solution with results falling  short of perfection be scrapped. But that is just the beginning, and, though we will examine that objection, may be irrelevant, as the whole concept of perfection may be inappropriate in this context.

And why is that? Simple, the entire post misses the point of economics, as well as the goal of the market. And that will be our second topic, examining whether the market is, in fact, failing, and whether the author of the comment truly understands what the market is supposed to do.

And finally, in a variation on my post "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", I will look at something I have examined before, the tendency for liberals, and others, to wish to stamp out error by force. In this case, forcing those who hold mistaken beliefs about medicine to stop acting on them.  On the face of it this may seem a laudable, or at least understandable and harmless goal, but that assumption rests upon the rather dubious assumption that in all cases we have possession of accurate information, and know the truth with certainty. If we do not, then there will certainly be cases where we will actually force some into error who were previously acting correctly. (See "Redundancy as a Protective Measure", "Adaptability and Government", "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy", "Some Thoughts on "Summerhill"", "For Your Own Good", "Medical Regulations" and "Medical Regulation II".) But we shall look at that topic in greater detail at the end of our analysis, as well as asking whether it better serves our fellow man to try to forcibly correct his errors, and even if that is possible. Especially from an economic (and political) point of view, it is an interesting question, and one likely to produce conclusions with which many readers may not agree.

Finally, after we look at these questions, I want to ask one final question of all those who advocate replacing the market with something better. Having touched on many problems with such solutions in my posts "Contradictory Beliefs and Practices", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships", "Misguided, Deceptive or Evil? ", "Tyranny Without Tyrants" and others, I will not go into a lot of detail, but instead ask some very general questions about the purpose of government, the nature of man's rights, and how we can reconcile those answers with attempts to force others to abandon beliefs we see as mistaken. ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "Negative and Positive Rights", "Man's Nature and Government", "Tools", "An Unappreciated Truth", "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Prelude", "Man's Nature and Government") And, as it is a related topic, I will close with a few words on the objection raised by the other comment writer, the need to reply upon "the right people" when implementing non-market solutions. (A topic I covered before in ""The Wrong People", "A Question for Artists of the Left", "A Question"and "The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"")

But enough outline, let us start by looking at the original statements, or, more specifically, the idea that we must replace an, admittedly,  imperfect market with something else.

Imperfection is, I think all will agree, inevitable in life. ("The Basics", "Planning For Imperfection") Of course, to a degree it depends on how we define "perfect", but I think we an all agree that, regardless of perfection is defined, the universe around us normally fails to achieve those conditions, regardless of our efforts¹. And that highlights the first problem with this whole criticism, it sets perfection as the standard, while admitting perfection is unattainable. So, if we cannot achieve perfection, why must the market be rejected for falling short of the unattainable? If the substitute will also be imperfect, then we need to ask, not whether the market is perfect, but whether it is better or worse than the alternatives, and whether the improvement gained, if any, is worth the costs imposed by the change². Yet, when these arguments are offered, inevitably it is suggested that the alternatives tot he market will somehow achieve perfection, at least that is what one must conclude when the market is rejected for being less than perfect³.

I could probably say more on this topic, but I fear most of the arguments would overlap with those that are yet to come, so rather than risk repeating myself, I will leave my rejection of perfection as a standard as it now stands. Perfection is an absurd standard, the alternatives will never reach it, and so to hold the current system to that standard is to make change almost inevitable, but at the cost of short circuiting necessary cost-benefit analysis and other important analysis of both the present system and the proposed replacement. (In our case, the market and whatever "managed solution" is suggested to replace it.)

Having raced through that topic, mostly because it has been covered before⁴, and at some length, let us look at our next topic in a little more detail. And that point is a very simple one, whether or not the market is failing at all. After all, the whole argument is predicated on the idea that the market is in error, and thus falling short of perfection, or some other standard, and should therefore be replaced or "fixed". But before we can accept that argument, we really should do something very few listeners do, and ask ourselves if the market truly is failing, as if it is not, then the whole argument is rather pointless.

And that is where this whole debate really falls apart, as the claims of the market's failure, upon which every other point rests, are themselves incorrect, at least in as much as they completely fail to understand the purpose of the market, and thus improperly define success and failure.

The premise of the post, in a nutshell, is that shark cartilage is not a remedy for cancer, yet people continue to believe it is, even though there is enough evidence "out there" for them to know better. As this mistaken belief continues to persist, and even drives people to buy products without any benefit, the market is failing. And that failure makes it clear the market needs to be corrected, or replaced with something superior⁵.

But does a failure for a specific piece of information to spread mean the market is failing? Does the fact that products are being made and sold which some, or even all, scientists agree are ineffective, show a failure of the market? I would say no.

The market is not an educational device, our economic system does not exist to spread information, or ensure the holding of correct ideas. In fact, in an economic context, the idea of "correct" is effectively meaningless. As I argued in "Absolute Values", individuals value things based upon irreducible individual preferences. We may individually have difficulty understanding why people prefer A to B, or think they are wrong in holding that C is better than D. We may even know that science shows E is ineffective, and so laugh at them for buying it, but that is economically irrelevant. If an individual derives satisfaction from trading A for B, or from using the ineffective E, then he has bettered his situation by doing so, in economic terms. The market exists solely to allow individuals to improve their satisfaction. It does not question what is providing that satisfaction, it simply accepts their desires as a given and then works to provide them with the greatest satisfaction possible⁶.

Since the market has the single function of allowing an individual to obtain as much of X as he desires, provided he is willing to pay the market price, or, if we want a higher level view, of providing the greatest total satisfaction of individual wants, the market succeeds when prices are set such that it maximizes satisfaction. As I have said before, it will never achieve perfection in that respect, as wants constantly change, as do circumstances of production and sale, but a totally free market does come closest to reflecting those conditions, as well as individual desires and values, moving quickly to correct itself when circumstances change.

And, in the case in question, the market is working perfectly. Yes, it is regrettable that individuals continue to hold ideas that have no scientific foundation and are most likely incorrect⁷. However, so long as people desire such products, and receive some benefit from obtaining them, the market is right in providing such goods. Granted, many may see no "real" value in such products, but that does not mean the individuals in question receive no benefit. And, since it increases the overall satisfaction of individuals, providing such products is a sign the market is working properly, not broken. And thus, to claim the market is failing here is incorrect. The market is working properly, it is not meant to be a teaching tool, it is simply a mechanism for providing goods and services and allowing the exchange of those goods and services among individual. And in this case, that function is working properly. Just because someone finds the results disagreeable does not mean the market is broken, simply that he does not like the outcome. ("The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism")

Which brings me to my final topic, the examination of just that question. We can agree the market is not broken in any realistic sense, it is doing what it is supposed to do, and therefore it is wrong to argue either that is should be "fixed" or that it is falling short of perfection. However, though they would probably never word it so plainly, those opposing the free market could still argue the market itself is inherently flawed, that it has the wrong focus, and that instead of what individuals desire, the market should be forced to produce what people need. In other words, we should replace the "chaotic" free market with a "rational, managed" market.

It s a topic I have addressed numerous times, from  the frequently cited "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", to the pair of essays discussing "needs" and "wants", "luxuries" and "necessities" ("The Most Misleading Word", "Luxury and Necessity"), to my writing on the role of individuals in such a system ("The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"", "Bureaucracy and Arbitrary Power", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships"), to a chapter in my series of essays "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences" ("Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 12 - I'm OK, You're A Mess"),  and finally to my recent post "Simple Evidence", I have examined this question many times, and each time have come to the same conclusion. However, as I know very few of my readers follow links in these essays, rather than simply rely on my earlier work to make my point, I will offer up a condensed version of my arguments against such a position.

There are three basic problems with any attempt to force the market to match some sort of "rational" valuation. The first we have already addressed to a degree, that being that individuals still desire what they desire, regardless of what others think best for them, and so forcing the market to produce in accord with anything other than individual desires will create gluts and shortages, and bring about all the resulting inefficiencies, causing the market to produce less satisfaction than it could, as well as probably bankrupting many of those who produce in accord with some non-market doctrine. Whatever the wishes of regulators, people continue to buy and sell based upon desires that the government cannot control⁸.

The second problem is the one I discussed in "Absolute Values", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management" and "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", as well as "The Most Misleading Word" and "Luxury and Necessity". In many cases, there simply is no right or wrong production⁹. People often talk about producing what people "need" rather than what they want, or producing necessities before producing luxuries, but those terms are arbitrary ones, defined differently for each individual. ("Protean Terminology") For example, are books necessary or not? How about food? What foodstuffs are necessary and which are luxuries? If you ask a hundred people, you would get 100 answers. Which simply shows that there is no rational way to define these terms,any effort to impose them upon an economy is not an effort to make the economy more rational, but simply an effort to impose one individual's personal values upon everyone, which is certainly not likely to benefit anyone but that one individual.

Which brings me to the present case. Many will admit there are no rational tests for how much lipstick or gauze to produce, but they would argue ineffective medicines, or tainted foodstuffs can be banned. Even if individuals want them, because they do no good, banning them will benefit us overall, as it will force resources into effective treatments, and force individuals to try solutions which have a chance of working.

And it all sounds fine, until you begin to examine it a bit more. ("Medical Regulations", "Medical Regulation II", "Science and Government Intervention","Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding")

The first problem is that it assumes individuals will respond to a ban of an ineffective product by trying an alternative, and that money prevented from funding an ineffective alternative will be redirected to effective ones. However, that may not be the case. An individual denied access to a supposedly "quack" cancer treatment may simply give up. Likewise, money which would have been spent on producing that treatment may be redirected, not to effective treatments, but to unrelated matters. So the assumption it will redirect funds into more appropriate solutions is questionable at best.

To which many will reply, at least it prevented them from wasting money on a bad treatment. Which sounds good, until you ask yourself if we are that certain we know everything there is to know. After all, if we are going to ban treatments, we must assume that we know with absolute certainty what will and won't work, otherwise we may very well ban a good treatment and force people in to a bad one. Of course, we have a pretty good scientific community, so the chance of such errors is small. But history shows there are still errors. Beliefs long held by everyone are shown to be false. And if we base bans on such beliefs, won't we be forcing individuals to forgo actual effective treatments for less effective ones? Worse, by cutting off those avenues of research, might we not completely eliminate a promising area of research?¹⁰

I have argued before that individuals should be free to make their own choices, supported by their choice of expert information, and that the state should stay out of the matter. Mostly, I have made such an argument on the basis of individual rights, but I have recently, also pointed out that such a system serves as a safeguard against widespread errors. ("Redundancy as a Protective Measure", "Adaptability and Government", "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy", "Some Thoughts on "Summerhill""). Of course, the commenter in our essay would argue that this case proves my argument false, as the evidence is there that shark cartilage is ineffective, and yet people still buy it, and so expert knowledge is not enough, we need regulation. But I would argue the opposite. If you read the essay, many professional bodies continue to promote the myth that sharks don't get cancer, so who is to say that the regulators would not buy into the same myth and actually promote an ineffective treatment? Or maybe be swayed by a powerful politician to embrace a questionable view (as happened with the legitimization of homeopathy when the FDA was first created).

And that, in the end may be the final word in favor of my position. As the other comment writer said, allowing a government body to say what is right and wrong assumes that those regulators are perfect, and, as we said above, perfection is something we don't see in the real world. Without a doubt, those regulators will make mistakes. And worse, since many decisions are matters of preference, even medical decisions are often deciding whether the side effects are worth the benefit¹¹, many regulatory decisions will be nothing but imposing one set of valuations on everyone, rather than allowing individuals to decide what they think things are worth. For example, if a drug has a cure rate of only 1%, and terrible side effects, is it worth using? Right now, the government decides for everyone. Why should that not be an individual choice? Maybe I can accept the side effects for the slight chance of a cure, while you cannot. Why should there be but a single decision?

And yet, that single, one size fits all position is what is being advocated by this writer, and many others, as a "rational" solution to a "chaotic" market. Which shows the one other flaw in such theories. Not only are such systems unlikely to please anyone, but they are, knowingly or unknowingly, incredibly arrogant systems, as they quietly assume that the values of the individual designing the system, or at least of the regulators, are the "right" values, and those of everyone else are wrong. That does not sound like a suitable system for a supposedly free people. And, on a more practical, less abstract level, it does not sound like a system likely to produce a healthy, viable economy either.

===================================================

1. Of course we could define perfection as "whatever currently exists" and then live in an absolutely perfect universe, but, barring such cheats, I don't think it is too hard to agree upon the lack of perfection -- however defined -- in the world around us, as well as the institutions we create.

2. This point is often forgotten, but improvement alone is not enough to justify a change. I mentioned this in "The Runaway Stagecoach", but perhaps did not make it clear enough. So, allow me to offer a small example. Suppose I say I have a system that will allow you to save $2 a year on your electric bill. It is clearly an improvement. However, if it costs $10,000, odds are very good you will not live long enough to see the returns meet the costs. In fact, investing the $10,000 would almost inevitably pay more in interest than you would save, making the "improvement" a worse choice than taking the money and investing while persisting in the less efficient solution. Hopefully that makes a little more clear why simply being "better" is not enough to justify a change.

3. Strangely, once the alternatives are in place, the advocates freely admit their answers are not perfect. In fact, they often use the failings of their solutions as justifications for increased scope or increased funding. However, while they dismissed the market as a failure for not being perfect, they never do the same with the alternatives they support, allowing that perfection is unattainable and thus forgiving in their answers the flaws they would not forgive in the free market.

4. To be fair, I raced through not only because it is a familiar matter I have handled several times, but because it is such a foolish argument. In no other field would we take falling short of perfection as reason enough to reject an answer. Perhaps a little blame falls on those who over-sold the market, suggesting it was almost perfection incarnate, but I think much more blame should be placed on those neo-technocrats who have no problem promising the moon, while incapable of delivering even what we already have. They have managed to make the public expect promises of perfection, and fooled them into rejecting anything "imperfect", which is a recipe for constant tumult in the realms of economics and politics.

5. Again, to be fair, some rather simplistic boosters have, from time to time, made excessive claims for the market, mistakenly attributing to the market the same benefits they often attribute to elective government. ("Misunderstanding Democracy", "Power and Disorder") In both cases, the argument is often made that, because of the multitude of individual choices being made, and the ability to observe the decisions of others, the best ideas will spread, replacing others, and we will see a general progress of knowledge. As I wrote when discussing democracy, that may be a potential benefit of federalism in many cases("The Benefits of Federalism", "Redundancy as a Protective Measure", "Adaptability and Government", "Why Freedom Is Essential" and "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy"), but it is not the purpose of elective government. Nor is it the purpose of the free market. Both systems exist for reasons completely separate from any ability to encourage adopting improved ideas. In addition, in many cases, it is difficult to know what ideas are better or worse, or even if "better" and "worse" are meaningful terms in a given context, but I will be discussing that in the body of the essay shortly. For now, let me just say that improving knowledge is not the function of the market, but those who claimed it was may have helped create this confusion, providing arguments against the market, even as they thought they were helping to justify it.

6. It would be absurd to try to impose "rational" values on the economy, as individuals simply would not engage in trade. If you prevent a man from buying ineffective E which he desires, it does not mean he will buy something effective, he may simply do nothing, and thus remain less satisfied than before. We will discuss later some other issues with attempting to enforce "true" values on the economy, though I discussed them a few times before in "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Or The Logical Implications of Price Gouging Laws", "The Difference Between Public and Private, Or, The Real Monopolies and Cartels",  ""True" Prices" and  "Price Gouging", among others.

7. Unlike the writers of the comments, I cannot say with certainty they are wrong, as science is not capable of absolute certainty, not in the way mathematics or formal logic are. Science allows that any theory can be proved wrong by a contradictory observation. And so, while I am personally convinced there is absolutely no benefit in using oral shark cartilage to treat cancer, I cannot say the belief is certainly wrong, just very probably wrong. It is a very small distinction, but an important one, and one often overlooked by those who imagine themselves rationalists. Especially when they criticize beliefs (such as religious faith) they are certain are wrong. (See "Atheism's Circular Reasoning","Standard of Proof", "Insufficient Skepticism" and  "Skeptics? Really? I Beg to Differ".)

8. At least until the market is so damaged by interference that individuals begin to buy up whatever they can so they can trade it with others to get what they want. Once we reach the USSR-like level of production incompetence where there is so little to buy that money becomes almost worthless, people will begin to buy whatever is made, just so they (1) no longer hold valueless money and (2)
have something concrete to trade with others, as no one wants to hold money. In this situation there will no longer be gluts, but only because production is so dreadfully inefficient that there is chronic underproduction of all but a handful of goods. This is the one circumstance in which government directed production may still result in the clearing of the market, but that is not a sign the market is working.

9. I would actually argue there is no situation where there is right or wrong production, as our imperfect knowledge does not allow us to say with absolute certainty any decision is ineffective. But that argument belongs in the next section of the essay, so for now, I will say there are circumstances in which there clearly is no right and wrong.

10. I know these arguments are often offered by outright con men in support of treatments they know do not work. And I also know that it is uncommon for the entire medical or scientific community to persist in a serious error for a long time. On the other hand, I believe there are alternate solutions, which do not require us to cut off avenues by force of law, and so there is reason to curtail individual freedom.

11. While the FDA likes to pretend their system is objective, the "safe and effective" decisions are in many ways arbitrary. When are side effects "too great" to justify the benefits? When is a drug "effective"? And when "ineffective"? What percentage of cures is effective? Is anything better than placebo effective? And what rate of cure will offset what side effects? What is "safe"? All of these are cost-benefit analysis individuals would perform for themselves in every other aspect of life, but here a regulator's values are being substituted for those of an individual. (For example, PPA was deemed "too dangerous" to justify its use as a decongestant, but ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which have similar, though lesser, risks, are "safe", though they may be less effective as decongestants. As you can see, in any other context, these would be cost-benefit questions left in the hands of buyers, but in the case of medicines -- and a few other areas -- the government imposes its own cost-benefit analysis on everyone.)

===================================================

POSTSCRIPT

The remaining comments in this thread are interesting, as the defender, or at least half-hearted apologist for the market continues to debate with another new critic of capitalism. I will reproduce the rest without comment:

I'm not defending the assumptions of economics. What is not clear is that the critics of markets have ever offered anything that works better.
--------------------------------------------
Ideas have been offered, just not allowed to be fully tested. Strict regulation of the markets requiring truth in advertising and harsh punishments for those that don't. Unfortunately, the open market depends on people's lack of knowledge and gullibility and the marketers know this, so they block any attempt at real regulation.

--------------------------------------------

What you just defined is not an open market. Do not confuse the market we have with the actual ideal of an open market.

The other comments are not necessarily as interesting as those I reproduced here, but I do suggest reading the article, as it debunks one of our more resilient, unfounded myths, up there with "using 10% of our brains", or "peak oil"  (in the case of the latter silly myth,  see "Why I Doubt Peak Oil Predicitons", "Rejecting "Peak Oil", "Why Peak Oil is Laughable ", "A Thought on Oil Reserves" and "How Green Is My Technology Part I - Electric Cars I" for an explanation of why I think it the product of shoddy reasoning and eco-hype), and so should be more widely read.

POSTSCRIPT II

As anyone who reads my blog should know, I hardly think of Wikipedia as definitive. In fact, I am a very harsh critic. (See "The Tragedy of the Creative Commons", "One More Wikipedia Problem","Very Short Digression On Wikipedia", "Wikipedia Absurdity, Or How To Create Your Own Citation", "Wikipedia Syndrome", "Wikipedia Absurdities " and "The Failure of Wikipedia".) However, I have no problem using links to Wikipedia as a convenient way of linking to a number of supporting articles. For example, the article above about the 10% brain usage myth is not definitive itself, but links to a considerable number of legitimate articles (at least at the moment it does), and so saves me the trouble of linking to each of those articles myself. However, I only use it as those articles are not central to my argument. Since Wikipedia can change in an instant, were the brain myth crucial to my point, I would never link to Wikipedia, but would instead use actual articles. In short, I only link to wikipedia because the link itself is unimportant and so using Wikipedia does little harm and saves me time.

POSTSCRIPT III

As always when I spend time analyzing a trivial comment on a small website, or otherwise seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about something"minor", I am sure someone will comment on me taking things too seriously or "over thinking" things. However, in this case, even more than in past cases, I think I am justified in the time I spent. After all, while this specific comment may be at least the form of the argument, appears constantly in the talk and writing of thinkers on the left. And not just the higher ups, but the rank and file members of the left as well. The argument that the market must be managed or replaced because it has somehow failed is very common on the left (and sadly, not unknown among nominal members of the right as well -- "The Political Spectrum"), and so it seems spending some time discussing this all too common argument is time well spent. In fact, other than the other "broken market" argument, the one offered up when oil prices rise or other essential commodities see a price jump ("Authoritarian Oil Talk", "Those Darn Speculators", "Fear of the "Big"", "In Defense of Speculators", "Stop Big Porcelain Now!", "Absurdities on Oil", "Greed and the Price of Oil"), this is probably the most often offered argument against the free market, which makes it seem a good way to spend some of my time.

POSTSCRIPT IV

I know someone will point out that our doctors and scientists are good enough that they would not all be wrong at the same time, but I beg to differ. The history of science has several examples where the common belief, shared by everyone, has been overturned by a theory at first dismissed as impossible. Granted, these massive changes are rare, but they also usually result in tremendous leaps forward in knowledge. So I have to ask, what if such beliefs were prohibited by law? What if they were deemed "too risky" and individuals were kept from pursuing them? Or, worse, what if the regulatory apparatus became so onerous that new research was abandoned entirely and we were left with nothing but refinements of existing knowledge? That is what we risk by trying to prevent others from being wrong. Unless we are absolutely certain we are always right, every time we force someone to give up his "incorrect" belief, we risk destroying a tremendous new discovery. It may be a small risk, but after all, advocates of free speech make so much of Galileo,  why can't I turn it around and argue that our regulators would have shut him up just as effectively as the church did. Worse, not just shut him up, but prevented him from looking in the first place. Inquisitions at least wait until after the discovery has been made, regulation keeps anyone from looking at all, and thus may be even more destructive in the long run.