Because some groups, specifically children, the elderly, handicapped people (you know, the ones you and your mates saved from being aborted), do not have any power in that market.
1. What do you mean by "power in the market"?
2. Why should I believe that the above classes you mention have no "power" (most elderly in the United States are affluent, and lie somewhere in the middle class. Children are not a part of the market except through the buying decisions of their parents, who hold total power in the market in the sense that it is they (all members of the market) who decide how what is to be produced and in what quantity, how resources are to be allocated, and what businesses/industries will survive and which will not.
Their needs and interests do not have any impact on the market or influence its course.
The needs of the elderly and handicapped, and the desires of children have no influence on the market? Upon what basis do you make this claim?
Free markets are great where all participants have equal opportunities. But in reality they never do.
Of course not, and no one has ever claimed that they do. Equality of opportunity is a feature of an economically and socially free society with a dynamic, growth oriented unhampered market in which the state does not pick winners and losers, or restrict economic activity in various ways, creating artificial barriers to economic self sufficiency, not of the human condition itself as expressed among any particular human being within that society.
And if you think it is right to leave these powerless people solely at the mercy of their families, you've got your head up your trousers.
This utterly fantastic statement would gladden the heart of every leftist tyrant and philosopher king the 20th century has ever seen. I've seen many, many statements of abject moral and intellectual knavery in my time, but few make that which really lies at the bottom of the dark heart of leftism clearer than the above.
Thank you for such a lucid clarification of the real reason leftists and Democratic politicians have, under most circumstances, no other choice than to lie through their teeth regarding their real beliefs and the policies they really desire to impose on a citizenry. Assertions such as you have made above, that would be normative in, say, the cultural anthropology department at Harvard, or deep within the bowls of the U.N., would so marginalize the Democratic party that it would become irrelevant for generations.
The idea (and I really should call for a CFR on this) that the elderly or handicapped in America are "powerless" (again, whatever this means) is wonderful neo-Marxist tripe that requires both a fantastic dearth of education and historical knowledge as well as a megalithic gullibility to accept at face value.
Especially in regard to unwanted children, and dotty grandparents at risk of spending too much of their children's inheritance.
Quite a while back my mum made the faith-based choice to stop our family medical insurance and rely on Priesthood blessings and homeopathy. A valid personal choice, but totally irresponsible considering the ten children - who had no say in the matter.
Luckily we have a public health system which eventually paid for the three fake hips my parents have between them (private insurance is not a necessity, but speeds things up as there is no queue - each public-funded hip op took place 6-12 months later than if it had been covered by insurance). My brother however, developed rheumatic fever. Even though he got insurance when he started working, he doesn't get private coverage for heart disease. Without our public system, flawed though it is, at least one brother would be dead, and another would be stuck in a wheelchair.
Don't even bother going there. Anyone who has seriously studied either the U.K. or Canadian (or other) socialized medical systems knows perfectly well that these are more death care systems than health care systems, featuring chronic and permanent scarcity of resources and medical personnel, declining quality of care, rationing of care, and life endangering waiting periods. They have been unambiguous failures both economically and morally wherever they have been tried (as are all things socialist generally). I could go on and on and on and on looking at the empirical, economic and social realities of socialized medicine. It makes Lovecraft appear tame by comparison.
I am always amazed to see the mass blind acceptance of 'truth' as delivered by the PR/marketing/lobby arm of self-interested business corporations. Such information is not necessarily false, of course, but who knows? Most consumers just buy the party line uncritically.
1. What do you mean that corporations are "self interested"? How do corporations stay in business and grow?
2. What self interests do the state have? Politicians?
3. What about mass blind acceptance of government propaganda? Which is more dangerous and ultimately subversive of a free society, (and easier to counter when discovered): the false advertising of a corporation regarding its products, or state propaganda regarding, say, how a market economy works (or how Jews or "wreckers", "saboteurs", "deviationists", "counterrevolutionaries", "deniers" or "teabaggers" or other "enemies of the people" are messing everything up?)?