Parks, libraries and schools are largely not communally-owned spaces, but government-owned. Crucial distinction. In fact, some of the best alternatives to the traditional classroom model (i.e. Montessori, Sudbury, democratic, etc.) tend to be privately run schools. As such, private schools are on the positive side here.<p>Again, this mystical &quot;community&quot; is mostly an illusion. It&#x27;s either private ownership or government ownership via eminent domain. Commons aren&#x27;t applicable in most cases.<p>Bonds with extended family are to be settled on an individual case-by-case basis. Many people rightfully may consider their extended families to be not worth interacting with, and in any event this is all a flimsy normative sentiment.<p>Beauty standards are determined first societally, then by entrepreneurs. The profit motive is intrinsic to a world of uncertainty (see Frank H. Knight&#x27;s <i>Risk, Uncertainty and Profit</i>). It is wholly neutral. There is nothing wrong with pursuing profits, even though a lot of people have an anti-capitalist bias and are convinced it&#x27;s demonic.<p><i>I mostly agree, except in the sense that people are maybe being sold a bad cure for an ailment they might not have had, spending money they don&#x27;t have, perpetuating the problems that caused them to want to escape in the first place.</i><p>Clearly these are unresolved issues on part of the consumer.<p><i>Markets are flawed because the actors in them are not rational or well-informed (which is often an axiom of whatever model one chooses to use), and because the actions available to them are dictated by those currently on top.</i><p>This is the almost cliched refrain of every moral reformer. Market participants are irrational, therefore $SOCIAL_ENGINEERING_POLICY_OF_CHOICE. Of course, there is information asymmetry in <i>anything</i> one does (market or no market), and the classic resolutions are through screening or signaling.<p>(Also, the definitions of &quot;rational&quot; and &quot;informed&quot; in economics are quite different from their colloquial counterparts. Moreover, assuming universal irrationality by default leads to nihilistic conclusions. At least it should anyway, most people use it as an excuse for their pet reforms by completely ignoring the irrationality in state institutions.)<p><i>For instance, violence or overt threats of violence in pursuit of gain is considered to be taboo in markets (that I know of), since those who have goods or the means to produce them generally want to keep that relative power over those who do not.</i><p>What the fuck? Violence is taboo in markets because the bourgeoisie capitalists want to exploit the underdogs? Could it possibly be because the initiation of force against voluntary actors is considered immoral by almost everyone? Hopefully you do, as well, but I can&#x27;t deduce.<p>EDIT: The anti-capitalist and socialist crankery seems to be inherent from examining your post history.