Yesterday, 12:57 PM
To a point, yes. Beyond that point, a definite no. Why? Because markets are prone to manipulation of a sort that can cause severe problems for the people trading in them. Such manipulations are probably and at least mostly criminal in nature. So-called "pump and dump" schemes, for example, are clearly felonious in that they are incontestably fraudulent in many cases and at best, the product of ignorance and mania in the rest. I subscribe not only to "caveat emptor, but "caveat vendor" as well. All parties to contractual transactions are bound to honesty, if not minimal competence.
Um... not necessarily. Firstly, it depends on what is meant by "merit" in any given case. This ties closely into questions of transactor competency. A nation of narrow-'tween-the eyes dullards (remind you of anyone?) could be, and in fact have been, convinced to accept bull-vapors as meritorious money/currency. Go back ca. 2008 for a really large set of superb examples of this sort of thing. Acceptance, in and of itself, is no sufficient arbiter of merit.
Not sure I can agree with this. Standards regarding certain issues is not perforce a bad idea. The issue turns on questions of what the standards shall be, who will determine them, upon what basis are they to be accepted as "authoritative", and how and by whom they will be administered. Such standards should speak to the line between valid and criminal activity. They should be demonstrably non-arbitrary insofar as the goals to which they have been designed to support are concerned. Finally, their administration must comport in accord with the non-arbitrary nature of the standards in their application such that those charged with that task act such as to do so rightfully, non-arbitrarily, non-criminally, and in a manner that begets respect, rather than fear and hate, which is the vastly common case today.