...you might check to see if you are the one moving around.

I doubt most other people here are having trouble figuring out where I stand. Sometimes I think you just post one thing after another, and get around to reading the replies when you have time. Still, for the benefit of those others who may actually be following both sides of this:

I could swear you have advocated maximum profits, no controls, and leaving such things as worker safety to the marketplace. People would pay more for a company which treated its workers better, you said.

Basically right. Your main false premise here is the assumption that one can only achieve high profits by committing evil acts. This is probably a comforting rationalization to many leftists and other people who are basically failures in life, but it isn't true.

"No controls" is a very broad statement, which I can't subscribe to without more details. This is like saying "individual freedom" means I can go down the highway and shoot people driving cars I don't like. As just one example, it should be illegal for a corporation to dump its waste on someone else's property.

Your last sentence dpes not describe the major market driver, although a lot of people will indeed not buy from companies that have policies they disagree with. A company that treats its workers like crap will not be able to hire decent workers, unless it uses government force on its behalf to suppress competition. In older, low-tech times, when you could replace one unskilled guy with a shovel with another unskilled guy with a shovel, this kind of worker abuse might have been feasible, and even then one would have to suppress competitors by force. It isn't feasible for most industries now.

I could swear you do not think the government should provide medical services to poor people. It's true you didn't say they should go without. Just that the only agency which is in a position to supply medical services shouldn't.

To clarify: the government provides absolutely nothing to poor people. It takes money away from the rest of us and gives it to the poor people, hopefully in return for their votes. Your false premise here is that the only possible source of assistance to the poor has to be the government. I don't believe this is true.

BTW, if it wasn't for the government wallowing around in our health care system like an elephant in a fishpond, medical care would cost a fraction of what it does. A graph of medical costs over time that I saw in Consumer Reports showed a distinct break from a steady slow climb over decades to a rapid 45-degree slope when Medicare entered the picture.

The free market always works, if you don't throw a monkeywrench into it.

I could swear you said that under a communist system the Bolivian workers would have made the same amount and have been beaten if they protested, which would have been worse.

Sounds about right, except they probably would have been jailed instead of beaten. I have seen no communist system that has improved the living standards of its people, unless they were primitive subsistence farmers to start with.