I don't mean to say it's the only one
but it's certainly a strong contender for most dominant, and is actively pushed as a solution that increases freedom (especially by the economic right).

To the extent that "freedom of choice equates to freedom" becomes almost axiomatic. There are other options, and they shouldn't be overlooked.

Which bit is illogical? I can see the disagreement with premises clearly enough.

( www.b3ta.com/talk/4454608 )
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:34, archived)

Actually
The first thing I said was "in a free market society", which covers the feeble witterings of my previous post.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:40, archived)

The assertion that the free market offers only the take it or leave it approach is a false dichotomy, you are begging the question.
And while you may not have meant that that was an absolute, you stated it as such.
I'd agree with you that the right have been successful in recent years at narrowing the concept of freedom alarmingly, but combating this requires rigorous logical and theoretical precision.
Despite the terminology used in the previous statement, I am not, and have never been, a Marxist.
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:41, archived)

It's a base assumption of the free market system, like homo economicus, isn't it?
Maybe not even an assumption, more a benefit. I'm not being very rigorous.

I'm also taking bets for who will first reply with "hehehe homo".
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:46, archived)

It is, but the assumption is closely linked to the equally false assumption that the market will continually evolve to meet the needs of the consumer.
So closely linked that to analyse either proposition individually would be disingenuous.
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:54, archived)

That the whole edifice is based on false assumptions
is not something I'd deny.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:57, archived)