Some laws, like those against theft and violence, increase competitiveness. The ideal state has such laws - that establish a free market based on voluntary interaction - and little else. And indeed, states that get closest to this ideal have the best economic growth rates and trends in QoL improvements.

Nice handwaving....

Competitiveness != Free Market

If fact, if you want competitiveness you need to prevent a fully free market.

No matter how many times this is explained, people still continue to make this incredibly simple and enormously consequential mistake.

If we're taking the reductionist view that economic output is the only important measure of society, then people need to understand that means maximizing competition not maximizing a free market.

>>If fact, if you want competitiveness you need to prevent a fully free market.

I've seen no indication of that.

> And indeed, states that get closest to this ideal have the best economic growth rates and trends in QoL improvements.

Isn't this just a cleverly worded tautology? It's like saying healthy people tend to live longer and happier lives. But is it actionable information? Not really.

How is that a tautology?

And Sealioning is in action, and thus so is Poe's law.

No reasonable person could believe you're acting in good faith, right?

Really...

I don't see any tautology in my statement so I asked for an elaboration, in good faith.

But your caustic response is anything but, so you've become the very thing you imagine me to be: a bad faith interlocutor.

Your action is definitional Sealioning from my perspective.

If you can't see it then take a step back and analyze the thread until you can see how others would perceive your reply as such.

Again, I don't see the tautology in my statement, and I know I'm asking for elaboration in good faith, so there's no way I could see it from your perspective.

If you can't see it from my perspective despite other readers clearly having been able (upvotes) then the problem is You, isn't it?