Since they have not (as of yet) specifically addressed or refuted any of my points, let me address some issues raised. I'll try to stay away from the ad hominum as it is a good challenge for me.
Treespotter and Archdruid's arguments against a free-market are based on the premise that the result (i.e., wage/income) of a market system in their area has not met the standard they believe it should be. The unions have been able to more closely realize their dream. Therefore, the free-market system fails and a union model is to be preferred. In support they point to micro-examples of certain created conditions by unions that improved the worker's plight in their areas. Their statements also include the ideas that the manipulating the market and companies paying higher production costs is a good thing, that monopolies (utilities) can provide more work (income) for the private sector contractors, and that people who prefer the free-market system are ignorant and full of excrement.
While they provide some minor examples of periods of joy for the oppressed, they have yet to prove these perspectives as being an acurrate reflection of the free-market, or would actually provide better conditions for all involved, or would be a good thing if implimented on a macro-level. I suggest that their misunderstanding of a true free-market system has created the self-induced opaque condition they lament. Perhaps the light of freedom and liberty to pursue one's self-interest will help to bring clarification.
The free-market, if properly allowed to function, never promises an equal or "just" outcome for everyone. It cannot as we are dealing with human beings with an extreme variety of talents, abilities, motivations, and levels of perseverance. Some will succeed, some will greatly succeed, some will get by, and some will fail. That's the nature of humanity. To force the idea that all need an equal outcome is unfair and unjust for those who wish to put out more effort and have more skill and ability.
The free-market does reward those who are allowed to follow their own self-interest. If one can offer a product/service that is at least as good if not better than others in the same market, they will do well. That everyone does not get the same reward is just the nature of life and humanity. History has shown that the more it is manipulated by corrupt players, the harder it will be for fairness and justice to occur in the market.
Fairness and justice can occur only if everyone in the market is playing by the same rules in the form of following set boundaries (Ms. Rand and others went too far on this point IMO). But the more the law of supply and demand are left alone the more the price for a product/service will be fair and just, and the more the fruit for the worker will be as well. The concepts of "fair" and "just" are not completely determined by the producers or the consumers. They both have a part in it. Consumers hould pay what is fair for what they recieve. The producers charge what is fair to make a profit. The market, with all having free and uncoerced access to it (I'm with Ayn on this point), will determine each side of this. Manipulation of the market creates injustice for some, and undeserved reward for others.
The fairness is determined by the quality and availibility of the product/service, in combination with the public's demand for it. If you distinguish yourself by providing a better and higher quality product/service than others that are readily available in your market, why should you be paid the same as one who puts out a mediocre product/service? And why should a consumer pay more for mediocre? Ought consumers expect to pay more for higher quality, or what is more scarce? And how is it just or fair to force them to pay for what they may not want or have a need for?
This does require people (workers and employers) to have a strong set of values. It will never work if the majority of those in it, or a significant number of major players, confuse selfishness with self-interest. Why Archdruid introduced Berny Madoff I don't know, because what Madoff did had nothing to do with the free market. There doesn't need to be new regulation because there are laws against fraud and grand theft, which he committed. It took quite a while to realize this because he was, unfortunately, quite good at what he did. So Archdruid's point says nothing against the free-market system as Madoff violated the law and did not participate in the free-market. It may, however, speak to those consumers being too trusting.
Once again, who are they to set the price for my, or anyone's, service or product? Who are they to say that the price is not correct for where they are? Who are they to demand the public pay a higher price, even one penny? Who are they to say that everyone must attain the same level of acheivement and/or success? Who are they to demand companies comply with what they believe is fair?
Again, because I have yet to see that they have a clear understanding of the free-market system, might their objections be clouded by their faulty views?
Some more questions: If you are the only one who provides excellence, shouldn't you be paid more even though your production costs are the same? Or even less becuase you really know your business? Is the object of owning a business to make a profit, or provide the public with jobs?
