Internet world despairs as non-profit .org sold to private equity firm

There's no significant push to move to anything except a market economy in the West (even most of the self-described “socialists” in the West want a market socialism, not a command economy), but there are simply efforts to make tweaks to mitigate what are perceived to be serious harms of un- or improperly-regulated markets without changing that the basic nature of the economy is market-based.

So, people might propose banning trade in a particular item that is seen as causing great harm external to those buying and selling it. Or might propose taxing it to fund harm mitigation, bringing the costs it involuntarily imposes on others into the trade transaction.

Or if a particular good is seen as essential but the market is widely seen as failing at delivering it, might propose socializing that industry (either health care or health insurance are common areas receiving that treatment in the developed West.)

So the cry of “free markets” in internal policy debates is never a rebuttal to an argument for a radically different economic system, but for minor tweaks to correct widely perceived serious harms from the existig market system. So, it has a tendency to seem to be “I want to profit at the expense of the public good”, because it only comes up when there is a debate because of a widespread concern that the profit motives driving the market are causing serious harm to the public good, and only as a defense against the proposed solution to that problem.

I think they're saying "the West" is so capitalist even the stuff people complain restricts free markets doesn't actually. If that's what they're saying I think they're wrong. For a good summary of why, see https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/

Rephrased:

> Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is

The West is very pro market, so when people argue for free markets they are usually arguing against...

> a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities,

... making companies pay for the harms they cause (an example of internalizing a negative externality would be charging a factory for the CO2 they emit)

> perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical.

... or maybe having the government own the company in the narrow spaces that makes more sense (probably they're referring to utility companies, but usually the argument for the government controlling that sort of company is slightly different)

>×That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets.

In other words when people cry "free markets" they're usually arguing against solutions that would result in slightly regulated but free enough markets.

What is next? .gov domain sale to unscrupulous private firm based on Bahamas? Per-nation dns systems without respect to each other whatsoever and resulting collapse of https, since it is based on dns?

(I am not GP) I agree that they are good points. And yet, somehow, the parent post is sitting there heavily downvoted. Does it mean that people like the current system?