You can definitely do bad things to earn money. But a doctor, an engineer, etc, would've already contributed to the common good even if they buy a tenth car that sits in their garage. So simply buying a tenth car that sits in your garage (and employs the people building the car) isn't in itself a bad thing or an indication that you're not contributing to the common good.

In a free society, someone can spend their money on an extra toy if they want. Nothing wrong with that. It's a strange expectation to impose on others this notion of "spending only on the common good." It's not black and white what the common good is, and that is why an educated free market is a good proxy or mechanism for figuring that out.

Rather than top-down centralized planning.

The laissez-faire line is that the common good happens spontaneously if you allow some people to buy ten cars. Because that's "freedom".

No matter that homelessness is rising, life expectancy is falling, debt is increasing to catastrophic levels, the planet's ecology is becoming increasingly hostile to life (ask the Australians...) - and counter-evidence is piling up on all sides.

The suggestion that aggressively acquisitive small-minded personal selfishness ought to be the one true motivator of a healthy economy should be obvious laugh-out-loud nonsense to anyone capable of rational thought.

And yet, mysteriously, it's not just taken seriously, it's elevated to a near-mystical principle of omniscient collective market wisdom. (With the caveat here that markets need to be "educated" - an interesting thing to define.)

It's really quite strange.

> an educated free market

"educated" is pretty vague. For instance, some people think that a 75% tax rate on high income is reasonable. The "market" doesn't have the right answer on what the right tax rate should be, and how everyone should contribute to the common good. This (and many parameters that already restrict the mythical free market) should be decided by the society.

Besides, someone can earn money only if they live in a country that gave them the opportunity to do so. If the hypothetical doctor was born in the jungle somewhere, it's unlikely that he or she would have been able to make any money. In that sense, it's hard to argue that a high-tax rate is confiscatory, and I don't find it outrageous if they can only afford 5 cars instead of 10, if that can give more people access to health care.

That isn't the argument though. The original comment was saying that buying a tenth car is somehow inherently immoral, which it isn't.

If I've earned the money I have honestly, it isn't anyone else's business what I do with it. Buy an 100th car or light it on fire. Anyone who wants to tell me what to do with my money (that I've earned and paid all the taxes on) can take a long walk off a short pier.

> Anyone who wants to tell me what to do with my money

My point is that they could tell you to pay more tax for instance (which may prevent you from buying 100 cars).

It is when you buy your 10th million car and the environment is devastated. Whether that or a million people with ten extra cars each the outcome is negative for all. So society does have some say in wealth inequality and spending of those with a much larger impact on everyone.

>But a doctor, an engineer, etc, would've already contributed to the common good even if they buy a tenth car that sits in their garage.

Not so sure. For one, doctors can't usually afford a "tenth car".

But assuming they could, or going for the medical industry at large, they are probably a net monetary loss to society, adding the costs of BS needless operations, being wined and dined by the big pharma to push BS drugs, the opioid overperscription-crisis, and of course, overcharging 3x-10x for the same treatment compared to Western Europe. Net monetary loss in the sense that you could get the same services for much much less, and not of course in the sense that you don't get better health compared to not having doctors.

Same for engineers. People making great contributions -- the transistor, new building techniques, cars, etc, sure. People making BS time-sucking social apps (who seem to get the most money) are also a net loss, if not for anything else, for the huge loss of productivity (e.g. employees slacking on social media) and personal development (people wasting hours on end on social media on dopamine feedback loops).

>In a free society, someone can spend their money on an extra toy if they want. Nothing wrong with that.

Beyond some degree there's "something" wrong with that.

For anyone who believes that the medical industry is a net loss on society, I have a house to sell you on Mars.

Anyone that got that from my comment, I have a reading comprehension course to sell them. To quote myself:

"But assuming they could, or going for the medical industry at large, they are probably a net monetary loss to society, adding the costs of BS needless operations, being wined and dined by the big pharma to push BS drugs, the opioid overperscription-crisis, and of course, overcharging 3x-10x for the same treatment compared to Western Europe. Net monetary loss in the sense that you could get the same services for much much less, and not of course in the sense that you don't get better health compared to not having doctors"

i was going to respond with something like this but people who post like what you responded to willfully ignore such obvious things (because they are obvious after all). they argue that they're exceptions according to free market theology, or they argue that it's still ethical in some way, or they perform some other sort of acrobatics.